lltttttprattij  of 


FOUNDED  BY  JOHN  D.  ROCKEFELLER 


CHAUCER'S  OFFICIAL  LIFE 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED  TO  THE  FACULTY  OP  THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL  OF  ARTS  AND 

LITERATURE   IN   CANDIDACY  FOR  THE   DEGREE   OF 

DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 

(DEPARTMENT  OF  ENGLISH) 


BY 

JAMES  ROOT  HULBERT 


MENASHA,  WIS. 

THE   COLLEGIATE   PRESS 

GEORGE   BANTA  PUBLISHING  CO. 

1912 


1 


NOTE 

In  making  reference  to  books  and  manuscripts,  I  have  attempted 
to  use  abbreviations  which  seem  reasonably  clear.  Perhaps  the 
least  intelligible  are  C.  R.  which  stands  for  Close  Rolls,  and  L.  R. 
which  stands  for  Life  Records  of  Chaucer  (Chaucer  Soc.)  Wher- 
ever possible,  I  have  referred  to  prints  rather  than  to  original  man- 
uscripts because  the  printed  calendars  are  much  more  accessible. 
In  a  work  which  has  involved  the  copying  of  innumerable  refer- 
ences, many  of  which  are  to  documents  in  the  Public  Record  Office 
not  available  to  me  as  I  revise  my  copy,  it  is  too  much  to  expect 
that  there  should  be  no  inaccuracies.  Therefore,  if  the  reader  dis- 
covers erroneous  referencesr  I  must  ask  his  leniency. 

For  their  courtesy  and  assistance  in  making  books  and  docu- 
ments accessible  to  me,  I  wish  most  heartily  to  thank  J.  A.  Herbert, 
Esq.,  of  the  Manuscript  Department,  the  British  Museum,  and  Ed- 
ward Salisbury,  Esq.,  and  Hubert  Hall,  Esq.,  of  the  Public  Record 
Office.  To  my  friend  and  colleague,  Dr.  Thomas  A.  Knott,  of  the 
University  of  Chicago,  I  am  deeply  indebted  for  his  kindness  in 
reading  over  parts  of  my  manuscript  and  trying  to  make  their  style 
clearer  and  more  readable.  My  greatest  obligation,  however,  is  to 
Professor  John  M.  Manly,  not  only  for  encouragement  and  specific 
suggestions  as  to  the  handling  of  this  subject,  but  for  a  training 
which  has  made  possible  whatever  in  my  results  may  be  considered 
of  value. 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

INTRODUCTION  :  Statement  of  the  problem 1 

THE  ESQUIRES  OF  THE  KING'S  HOUSEHOLD: 

Their  Families 6 

Appointment 12 

Classification 13 

Services 18 

Rewards     .                  20 

Marriage 25 

Careers  of  the  Esquires  of  1368 27 

THE  JUSTICES  OF  THE  PEACE  .          37 

THE  CUSTOMS 42 

SIR  JOHN  DE  BURLEY 48 

SIR  EDWARD  DE  BERKELEY 49 

SIR  THOMAS  DE  PERCY 49 

SIR  WILLIAM  DE  BEAUCHAMP 50 

RICHARD  FORESTER 52 

HENRY  SCOGAN     .             54 

OTO  DE  GRAUNSON 54 

BUKTON 54 

CHAUCER'S  CAREER  AND  His  RELATION  TO  JOHN  OF  GAUNT      .  56 

CHAUCER'S  RELATION  TO  RICHARD  II 63 

SOME  GENERAL  POINTS  64 


INTRODUCTION 

The  researches  of  Sir  Harris  Nicolas,  Dr.  Furnivall,  Mr.  Selby 
and  others  have  provided  us  with  a  considerable  mass  of  detailed 
information  regarding-  the  life  and  career  of  Geoffrey  Chaucer. 
Since  the  publication  of  Nicolas 's  biography  of  the  poet  prefixed 
to  the  Aldine  edition  of  Chaucer's  works  in  1845,  the  old  traditional 
biography  of  conjecture  and  inference,  based  often  on  mere  proba- 
bility or  the  contents  of  works  erroneously  ascribed  to  Chaucer,  has 
disappeared  and  in  its  place  has  been  developed  an  accurate  biog- 
raphy based  on  facts.  In  the  sixty-five  years  since  Nicolas 's  time, 
however,  a  second  tradition — connected  in  some  way  with  fact,  to 
be  sure — has  slowly  grown  up.  Writers  on  Chaucer's  life  have 
not  been  content  merely  to  state  the  facts  revealed  in  the  records, 
but,  in  their  eagerness  to  get  closer  to  Chaucer,  have  drawn  many 
questionable  inferences  from  those  facts.  Uncertain  as  to  the  exact 
significance  of  the  various  appointments  which  Chaucer  held,  his 
engagement  in  diplomatic  missions  and  his  annuities,  biographers 
have  thought  it  necessary  to  find  an  explanation  for  what  they  sup- 
pose to  be  remarkable  favours,  and  have  assumed — cautiously  in 
the  case  of  careful  scholars  but  boldly  in  that  of  popular  writers — 
that  Chaucer  owed  every  enhancement  of  his  fortune  to  his  "great 
patron"  John  of  Gaunt.  In  greater  or  less  degree  this  conception 
appears  in  every  biography  since  Nicolas.  Professor  Minto  in  his 
Encyclopedia  Brittanica  article *  says  with  regard  to  the  year 
1386:  "that  was  an  unfortunate  year  for  him;  his  patron,  John  of 
Gaunt,  lost  his  ascendancy  at  court,  and  a  commission  which  sat  to 
inquire  into  the  abuses  of  the  preceding  administration  superseded 
Chaucer  in  his  two  comptrollerships.  The  return  of  Lancaster  to 
power  in  1389  again  brightened  his  prospects;  he  was  appointed 
clerk  of  the  King 's  works, ' '  etc. 

Similarly,  Dr.  Ward  in  his  life  of  Chaucer,  after  mentioning 
that  Chaucer  and  John  of  Gaunt  were  of  approximately  the  same 
age,  writes  :2"  Nothing  could,  accordingly,  be  more  natural  than 
that  a  more  or  less  intimate  relationship  should  have  formed  itself 
between  them.  This  relation,  there  is  reason  to  believe,  afterwards 

1  Ed.  Scribners  1878,  vol.  5,  p.  450. 

2  English  Men  of  Letters.     Harpers.     1879,  p.  66. 


2  CHAUCER'S  OFFICIAL  I.IFK 

ripened  on  Chaucer's  part  into  one  of  distinct  political  partisan 
ship."  With  regard  to  the  loss  of  the  controllerships  Dr.  Ward 
writes:1  "The  new  administration"  (i.  e.  that  of  Gloucester  and 
his  allies)  "had  as  usual  demanded  its  victims — and  among  their 
number  was  Chaucer.  .  .  .  The  explanation  usually  given  is 
that  he  fell  as  an  adherent  of  John  of  Gaunt ;  perhaps  a  safer  way 
of  putting  the  matter  would  be  to  say  that  John  of  Gaunt  was  no 
longer  in  England  to  protect  him."  A  little  further  on  occurs  the 
suggestion  that  Chaucer  may  have  been  removed  because  of  "his 
previous  official  connection  with  Sir  Nicholas  Brembre,  who,  be- 
sides being  hated  in  the  city,  had  been  accused  of  seeking  to  com- 
pass the  deaths  of  the  Duke  and  of  some  of  his  adherents. ' ' 2  Later, 
in  connection  with  a  discussion  of  Chaucer's  probable  attitude  to- 
ward Wiclif,  Dr.  Ward  writes:3  "Moreover,  as  has  been  seen,  his 
long  connexion  with  John  of  Gaunt  is  a  well-established  fact;  and 
it  has  thence  been  concluded  that  Chaucer  fully  shared  the  opin- 
ions and  tendencies  represented  by  his  patron." 

Dr.  Ward's  treatment  is  cautious  and  careful  compared  to  that 
of  Prof.  Henry  Morley  in  his  ' '  English  Writers. ' '  For  example,  the 
latter  writes:4  "Lionel  lived  till  1368,  but  we  shall  find  that  in 
and  after  1358  Chaucer's  relations  are  with  John  of  Gaunt,  and  1^ie 
entries  in  the  household  of  the  Countess  Elizabeth  might  imply  no 
more  than  that  Chaucer,  page  to  John  of  Gaunt,  was  detached  for 
service  of  the  Countess  upon  her  coming  to  London. ' '  A  few  pages 
further  on  5  in  the  same  volume  occurs  a  paragraph  on  the  life  of 
John  of  Gaunt  glossed  "Chaucer's  Patron."  With  regard  to  the 
grants  of  a  pitcher  of  wine  daily,  and  the  two  controllerships,  Pro- 
fessor Morley  writes : 6  "  These  successive  gifts  Chaucer  owed  to 
John  of  Gaunt,  who,  in  this  last  period  of  his  father's  reign,  took 
active  part  in  the  administration."  And  again,7  "John  of  Gaunt 
had  administered  affairs  of  government.  It  was  he,  therefore, 
who  had  so  freely  used  the  power  of  the  crown  to  bestow  marks  of 
favor  upon  Chaucer."  8"It  was  his  patron  the  Duke,  therefore, 
who,  towards  the  end  of  1376,  joined  Chaucer  with  Sir  John  Bur- 
ley,  in  some  secret  service  of  which  the  nature  is  not  known." 

'p.  104. 

1  It   is  curious  that  Dr.   Ward  did  not  realize  that  Chaucer  could  not  possibly   have 
belonged  to  the  parties  of  John  of  Qaunt  and  of  Brembre. 
*p.  134. 
«Vol.  5,  p.  98.     ep.  103.     "p.  107.     Tp.  109.     8  p.  110. 


INTRODUCTION  3 

Finally,  after  mentioning  Chaucer's  being  "discharged"  from  his 
controllerships,  Morley  writes:1  "During  all  this  time  Chaucer's 
patron  John  of  Gaunt  was  away  with  an  army  in  Portugal. ' ' 

Such  absolute  certainty  and  boldness  of  statement  as  Professor 
Morley 's  is  scarcely  found  again  in  reputable  writers  on  Chaucer. 
Professor  Lounsbury  in  his  life  of  Chaucer  implies  rather  cautiously 
that  Chaucer  lost  his  places  in  the  Customs  because  of  John  of 
Gaunt 's  absence  from  the  country,  and  as  the  result  of  an  investi- 
gation of  the  customs.2  Mr.  Jusserand  in  his  Literary  History  of 
England  writes : 3  "  For  having  remained  faithful  to  his  protectors, 
the  King  and  John  of  Gaunt,  Chaucer,  looked  upon  with  ill  favour 
by  the  men  then  in  power,  of  whom  Gloucester  was  the  head,  lost  his 
places  and  fell  into  want."  F.  J.  Snell  in  his  Age  of  Chaucer  has 
similar  statements,  almost  as  bold  as  those  of  Professor  Morley. 
4  "John  of  Gaunt  was  the  poet's  life-long  friend  and  patron." 
5 ' '  Chaucer  was  now  an  established  favourite  of  John  of  Gaunt, 
through  whose  influence  apparently  he  was  accorded  this  desir- 
able post,"  (i.  e.,  the  first  controllership.)  Most  remarkable  of  all : 6 
"Outwardly,  much  depended  on  the  ascendency  of  John  of  Lan- 
caster. If  the  Duke  of  Lancaster  prospered,  Chaucer  prospered 
with  him.  When  the  Duke  of  Gloucester  was  uppermost,  the  poet's 
sky  was  over  cast,  and  he  had  hard  work  to  keep  himself  afloat. ' ' 

The  last  quotations  which  I  shall  give  on  this  point  are  from 
Skeat's  life  of  Chaucer  prefixed  to  the  single  volume  edition  of  the 
poet 's  works  in  the  Oxford  series : 7  "As  the  duke  of  Gloucester 
was  ill  disposed  towards  his  brother  John,  it  is  probable  that  we 
can  thus  account  for  the  fact  that,  in  December  of  this  year,  Chaucer 
was  dismissed  from  both  his  offices,  of  Comptroller  of  Wool  and 
Comptroller  of  Petty  Customs,  others  being  appointed  in  his  place. 
This  sudden  and  great  loss  reduced  the  poet  from  comparative 
wealth  to  poverty;  he  was  compelled  to  raise  money  upon  his 
pensions,  which  were  assigned  to  John  Scalby  on  May  1,  1388." 
On  the  same  page:  "1389.  On  May  3,  Richard  II  suddenly  took 
the  government  into  his  own  hands.  John  of  Gaunt  returned  to 
England  soon  afterwards,  and  effected  an  outward  reconciliation 
between  the  King  and  the  Duke  of  Gloucester.  The  Lancastrian 

1  p.  243.  2  Studies  in  Chaucer,  vol.  I,  pp.  81-82.  3  Eng.  trans.,  1894,  p.  312.  *  p. 
131.  5p.  149.  «p.  230.  7p.  XIII. 


4  CHAUCER'S  OFFICIAL  LIFE 

party  was  now  once  more  in  power,  and  Chaucer  was  appointed 
Clerk  of  the  King's  Works,"  etc. 

Closely  connected  with  the  question  of  Chaucer's  relations  with 
John  of  Gaunt,  and  indeed  fundamental  to  it — as  the  constant 
reference  in  the  foregoing  extracts  to  the  grants  which  Chaucer 
held  would  indicate — is  the  problem  of  the  significance  of  Chaucer's 
annuities,  offices,  and  diplomatic  missions.  Extracts  from  two 
writers  on  Chaucer's  life  will  show  how  this  problem  has  been 
treated.  Professor  Hales  in  his  D.  N.  B.  article  l  says  of  the  first 
pension  from  the  King:  "This  pension,  it  will  be  noticed,  is  given 
for  good  service  done.  .  .  .  The  pension  is  separate  from  his 
pay  as  a  'valettus'  and  must  refer  to  some  different  service." 
Similarly  Professor  Lounsbury  in  his  Studies  in  Chaucer  writes : 2 
"It  is  from  the  statement  in  this  document  about  services  already 
rendered  that  the  inference  is  drawn  that  during  these  years  he 
had  been  in  close  connection  with  the  court."  In  regard  to  the 
grant  of  the  wardship  of  Edward  Staplegate,  he  says:3  "This 
was  a  common  method  of  rewarding  favorites  of  the  crown.  In 
the  roll  which  contains  this  grant  it  is  said  to  be  conferred  upon 
'our  beloved  esquire.'  '  By  way  of  comment  on  the  grant  of  a 
pitcher  of  wine  daily,  he  writes :  *  "  Though  never  graced  with  the 
title  of  poet  laureate,  Chaucer  obtained  at  this  same  period  what 
came  to  be  one  of  the  most  distinguishing  perquisites  which  at- 
tached itself  to  that  office  in  later  times."  With  regard  to  the 
offices :  °  "  Chaucer  was  constantly  employed  in  civil  offices  at 
home  and  in  diplomatic  missions  abroad.  In  both  cases  it  is  very 
certain  that  the  positions  he  filled  were  never  in  the  nature  of  sine- 
cures." As  to  the  diplomatic  missions  6 — "Their  number  and  their 
variety,  treating  as  they  do  of  questions  of  peace  and  wrar,  show  the 
versatility  of  his  talents  as  well  as  his  wide  knowledge  of  affairs. 
Nor  can  I  avoid  feeling  that  his  appointment  upon  so  many  mis- 
sions, some  of  them  of  a  highly  delicate  and  important  nature,  is 
presumptive  evidence  that  he  was  not  a  young  man  at  the  time  and 
must  therefore  have  been  born  earlier  than  1340  ....  these 
appointments  are  proofs  that  can  hardly  be  gainsaid  of  the  value 
put  upon  his  abilities  and  services.  Then,  as  now,  there  must  have 
been  plenty  of  persons  of  ample  leisure  and  lofty  connections  who 

1  Vol.  10,  p.  157.  *  Vol.  1,  p.  61.  *  idem,  p.  65.  «  idem,  p.  63.  6  idem,  p.  66. 
•  idem,  p.  70. 


INTRODUCTION  5 

were  both  ready  and  anxious  to  be  pressed  into  the  service  of  the 
state.  That  these  should  have  been  passed  by,  and  a  man  chosen 
instead  not  furnished  with  high  birth  and  already  furnished  with 
other  duties,  is  a  fact  which  indicates,  if  it  does  not  show  con- 
vincingly, the  confidence  reposed  in  his  capacity  and  judgment." 
With  regard  to  the  controllership,  Professor  Lounsbury  writes : 1 
"The  oath  which  Chaucer  took  at  his  appointment  was  the  usual 
oath.  .  .  .  He  was  made  controller  of  the  port  because  he  had 
earned  the  appointment  by  his  services  in  various  fields  of  activity, 
and  because  he  was  recognized  as  a  man  of  business,  fully  qualified 
to  discharge  its  duties. "  2  "  In  1385  he  was  granted  a  much  greater 
favor"  (than  the  right  to  have  a  deputy  for  the  petty  customs). 
"On  the  17th  of  February  of  that  year  he  obtained  the  privilege 
of  nominating  a  permanent  deputy.  .  .  .  It  is  possible  that  in 
the  end  it  wrought  him  injury,  so  far  as  the  retention  of  the  post 
was  concerned." 

A  merely  casual  reading  of  such  statements  as  those  I  have 
given  above  must  make  it  clear  that  they  attempt  to  interpret  the 
facts  which  we  have  about  Chaucer,  without  taking  into  considera- 
tion their  setting  and  connections — conditions-  in  the  courts  of 
Edward  III  and  Eichard  II,  and  the  history  of  the  period.3  Surely 
it  is  time  for  an  attempt  to  gain  a  basis  of  fact  upon  which  we  may 
judge  the  real  significance  of  Chaucer's  grants  and  his  missions 
and  from  which  we  may  determine  as  far  as  possible  his  relations 
with  John  of  Gaunt.  In  the  following  pages  then,  I  shall  attempt 
first  to  discover  the  relative  importance  of  Chaucer's  place  in  the 
court,  and  the  significance  of  his  varied  employments,  and  secondly 
to  find  out  the  certain  connections  between  Chaucer  and  John  of 
Gaunt.  The  means  which  I  shall  employ  is  that  of  a  study  of  the 
lives  of  Chaucer's  associates — his  fellow  esquires,  and  justices  of  the 
peace,  and  his  friends — and  a  comparison  of  their  careers  with  that 
of  Chaucer  to  determine  whether  or  not  the  grants  he  received  indi- 
cate special  favour  or  patronage,  and  whether  it  is  necessary  to 
assume  the  patronage  of  John  of  Gaunt  in  particular  to  explain 
any  step  in  his  career. 

1  Studies  in  Chaucer,  p.  72.  2  idem,  p.  74.  a  Note  for  example  the  statement  on  page 
3  above  that  "the  Duke  of  Gloucester  was  ill-disposed  towards  his  brother  John." 


THE  ESQUIRES  OF  THE  KING'S  HOUSEHOLD 
THEIR  FAMILIES 

We  have  the  names  of  the  esquires  of  the  king's  household  in 
two  lists  of  1368  and  1369,  printed  in  the  Chaucer  Life  Records.1 
In  the  study  of  the  careers  of  these  esquires  the  most  difficult  prob- 
lem is  to  determine  the  families  from  which  they  were  derived. 
Had  they  come  from  great  families,  of  course,  it  would  not  have 
been  hard  to  trace  their  pedigrees.  But  a  long  search  through 
county  histories  and  books  of  genealogy,  has  revealed  the  families 
of  only  a  few,  and  those  few  in  every  case  come  from  an  unim- 
portant line.  It  is  clear  then  that  they  never  were  representatives 
of  highly  important  families.  A  statement  of  the  antecedents  of 
such  esquires  as  I  have  been  able  to  trace,  the  names  arranged  in 
alphabetical  order,  follows. 

John  Beauchamp  was  almost  certainly  either  that  John  Beau- 
champ  of  Holt  who  was  executed  in  1386,  or  his  son.  In  either 
case  he  was  descended  from  a  younger  branch  of  the  Beauchamps 
of  Warwick.2 

Patrick  Byker,  who  was  King's  "artillier"  in  the  tower  of 
London,3  was  the  son  of  John  de  Byker  who  had  held  the  same 
office  before  him.4  William  Byker,  probably  a  relative,  is  men- 
tioned from  about  1370  on  as  holding  that  office.5  I  have  been 
able  to  learn  nothing  further  about  the  family. 

Nicholas  Careu:  in  the  records  one  finds  reference  to  Nicholas 
Careu  the  elder  and  Nicholas  Careu  the  younger.6  Since  the  elder 
was  guardian  of  the  privy  seal  from  1372  to  1377  7  and  in  1377  was 
one  of  the  executors  of  the  will  of  Edward  III,  it  seems  likely  that 
the  esquire  was  Nicholas  Careu  the  younger.  At  any  rate  the 
younger  was  the  son  of  the  older 8  and  they  were  certainly  members 
of  the  family  of  Careu  in  Surrey.9  The  pedigrees  of  this  family 
do  not  show  Nicholas  the  younger  (so  far  as  I  have  found).  But 
a  Nicholas,  Baron  Carew,  who  may  have  been  the  keeper  of  the 

1  See  page  13  ff.  *  Issues,  P.  232,  mem.  26.  Peerage  of  England,  Scotland,  etc.,  by 
G.  E.  C.,  vol.  1,  p.  278.  *  1362  Cal.  C.  R.,  p.  373.  «  35  Edw.  Ill,  p.  174  Cal.  Rot.  Pat. 
in  Turr.  Lon.  B  Devon's  Issues,  1370,  p.  33,  Issues,  P.  303,  mem.  14.  8  Ancient  Deeds 
10681.  7Rymer,  p.  951,  1069.  »C.  R.  229,  mem.  33  dorso,  12  Rich.  II.  »  1378  Cal.  Pat. 
Roll,  p.  143,  1381-5  Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  passim,  Cal.  Inq.  P.  M.  Ill,  125. 


THE  ESQUIRES  OF  THE  KING'S  HOUSEHOLD  7 

privy  seal,  does  occur.1  The  name  of  his  son,  as  given  in  the  pedi- 
gree, is  not  Nicholas ;  consequently  Nicholas,  the  younger,  was  prob- 
ably not  his  eldest  son.  This  last  supposition  is  supported  by  certain 
statements  in  Westcote  's  Devonshire  2  where  we  are  told  that  ' '  Sir 
Nicholas  Carew,  Baron,  of  Carew  Castle,  Montgomery  in  Wales, 
married  the  daughter  of  Sir  Hugh  Conway  of  Haccomb,  and  had 
issue  Thomas,  Nicholas,  Hugh,"  etc. 

Roger  Clebury.  In  Westcote 's  Devonshire  3  occurs  an  account 
of  a  family  named  Cloberry,  of  Bradston.  In  the  course  of  his 
statement,  which  is  devoid  of  dates  or  mention  of  lands  other  than 
Bradston,  Westcote  refers  to  two  Rogers. 

Several  men  of  the  name  of  William  de  Clopton  are  mentioned 
in  the  county  histories.  Unfortunately  no  facts  appear  in  the 
records  to  connect  any  one  of  them  with  the  esquire  of  that  name. 
At  any  rate  from  the  accounts  given  in  Gage  4  and  Morant 5  the  fol- 
lowing pedigree  is  clear : 


Sir  William  de  Clopton       ,  Thomas  de  Clopton 

(20  Edw.  Ill)  I 


Sir  William,  Edmund,  John,  Walter,  Thomas  William 

The  elder  Sir  William,  according  to  Gage,  married  first  Anet, 
daughter  of  Sir  Thomas  de  Grey,  and  secondly  Mary,  daughter 
of  Sir  William  Cockerel.  With  his  second  wife  he  received 
the  manor  and  advowson  of  Hawsted  and  lands  in  Hawsted, 
Nowton,  Great  and  Little  Horningsherth  and  Bury  St.  Edmunds. 
Morant  speaks  of  the  family  as  an  ancient  one  and  traces  it  back 
to  the  time  of  Henry  I. 

Robert  de  Corby  was  son  of  Robert  and  Joan  de  Corby.6  His 
father  had  been  yeoman  in  the  King's  court  and  had  received  a 
number  of  grants  from  the  King.7 

Collard,  or  Nicholas,  Dabrichecourt  was  a  son  of  Nicholas 
Dabrichecourt,  brother  of  Sir  Eustace  Dabridgecourt  of  War- 
wickshire.8 The  latter  had  won  the  favor  of  Philippa  in  France 
and  had  come  to  England  when  she  was  married  to  Edward  III. 

1  Visitation  of  Surrey  Harleian  Soc.  p.  17.  2p.  528.  Of  course  it  is  not  certain  that 
this  Sir  Nicholas  was  the  Keeper  of  the  Privy  Seal.  *  p.  555.  4  Gage's  History  of  Suf- 
folk: Thingoe  Hundred,  p.  419.  5  Morant's  Essex,  vol.  2,  p.  321.  8  Pat.  Roll  291,  mem.  1. 
7Cal.  C.  R.,  p.  496  (1345).  Cal.  Rot.  Pat.  Turr.  Lon.  38  Edw.  Ill,  p.  178  b.  8  Visit 
of  War  (Harl.)  p.  47,  Beltz  Mem.  of  Garter,  p.  90. 


8  CHAUCER'S  OFFICIAL  LIFE 

George  Felbrigge  was,  according  to  Blomefield's  Norfolk,1  de- 
scended from  a  younger  branch  of  the  Bigods.  The  head  of  this 
family  was  the  Earl  of  Norfolk. 

Sir  Simon,  third  son  of  Hugh,  Earl  of  Norfolk 

I 
Sir  Roger 


Sir  Simon  John  le  Bigod 

Sir  Roger  Roger  le  Bigod 

Sir  Simon  Sir  George 

The  younger  branch  of  the  family  had  assumed  the  name  of 
Felbrigge  from  a  town  of  that  name  in  Norfolk.  As  will  be  seen, 
George  Felbrigge  came  from  the  younger  branch  of  a  younger 
branch  of  the  family,  and  his  ancestors  seem  to  have  been  neither  in- 
fluential nor  wealthy. 

Robert  de  Ferrer's  pedigree  was  as  follows: 2 

John  Ferrers  =  Hawise  d.  of  Sir  Robert  Muscegros. 
Baron  Ferrers  | 

Robert,  2nd  baron  =  Agnes  (?)  d.  of  Humphrey  Bohun, 

Earl  of  Hereford 


John,  3rd  baron  Robert 

obit.  2  Apr.  1367  died  1381 

Since  his  brother  died  only  a  year  before  the  date  of  the  first 
of  the  lists,  it  is  very  likely  that  Robert  became  a  member  of  the 
King's  household,  while  still  a  younger  son.  His  father,  Robert, 
second  baron  Ferrers,  was  one  of  the  Knights  of  the  King's  Cham- 
ber. He  fought  in  the  campaigns  in  France  and  Flanders. 

Thomas  Frowyk  was  probably  a  member  of  a  prominent  London 
family  of  merchants.  Lysons  writes  of  the  family  as  follows : 3 
"The  manor  of  Oldfold  was  at  a  very  early  period  the  property 
of  the  Frowyks  or  Frowicks.  Henry  Frowyk,  who  was  settled  at 
London  in  1329,  was  sixth  in  descent  from  Thomas  Frowyk  of  the 
Oldfold,  the  first  person  mentioned  in  the  pedigree  of  the  family. 
.  .  .  .  Thomas  Frowyk,  a  younger  brother  of  Henry  above  men- 
tioned, inherited  the  Oldfold  estate,  which  continued  in  the  family 
till  his  grandson's  time."  This  Thomas  Frowyk  is  mentioned  in 
the  Close  Rolls  between  1351  and  1353  as  Justice  of  the  Peace  for 

1  Vol.  8,  p.  107  ff.  *  Baker's  Northampton,  vol.  1,  p.  123.  *  Parishes  in  Middlesex, 
etc.,  p.  228. 


Middlesex,  and  in1  27  Edward  III  as  lieutenant  of  the  Queen's 
steward. 

The  connections  of  Thomas  Hauteyn  are  not  quite  so  clear  but 
apparently  he  likewise  was  derived  from  a  family  of  London  mer- 
chants. Blomefield's  Norfolk2  tells  of  a  family  of  Hauteyns  of 
knightly  rank.  Sir  John  Hauteyn  probably  became  a  citizen  of 
London  in  16  Edward  II  and  was  subsequently  receiver  of  the 
King's  customs  of  wool  at  London.  Even  earlier  than  this,  in  15 
Edward  I,  a  Walter  Hawteyn  was  sheriff  of  London.3  In  7  Edward 
III  a  John  Hawteyn  was  alderman  of  a  ward  in  London.*  We  can 
suppose  some  connection  between  Thomas  Hauteyn  and  this  family 
because  he  held  certain  tenements  in  London.5 

John  de  Herlyng,  who  was  usher  of  the  King's  chamber  and 
the  most  important  of  the  esquires  in  Chaucer's  time,  came  of  a 
family  settled  in  Norfolk.  Blomefield  gives  a  pedigree  of  the  fam- 
ily beginning  with  this  John  de  Herlyng,6  but  is  unable  to  trace  his 
ancestry  definitely.  He  finds  mention  of  a  certain  Odo  de  Herlyng, 
but  is  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  the  family  was  an  unimportant 
one  before  the  time  of  John  de  Herlyng. 

With  regard  to  Rauf  de  Knyveton  very  little  information  is 
forthcoming.  Glover's  Derby7  gives  the  pedigree  of  a  family  of 
Knivetons  who  possessed  the  manor  of  Bradley  and  says  that  there 
was  a  younger  branch  of  the  family  which  lived  at  Mercaston. 
Ralph,  though  not  specifically  mentioned,  may  have  been  a  younger 
son  of  one  of  these  branches. 

Although  Helmyng  Leget  was  an  important  man  in  his  own 
time — sheriff  of  Essex  and  Hertfordshire  in  1401  and  1408,8  and 
Justice  of  the  Peace  in  Suffolk,9 — Morant  is  able  to  give  no  infor- 
mation about  his  family.  Perhaps  his  position  in  the  society  of  the 
county  was  due  in  part  to  the  fact  that  he  married  an  heiress, 
Alice,  daughter  of  Sir  Thomas  Mandeville.10 

John  Legge,  who  is  on  the  lists  as  an  esquire,  but  in  the  Patent 
Rolls  is  referred  to  chiefly  as  a  serjeant  at  arms,  was,  according  to 
H.  T.  Riley,  son  of  Thomas  Legge,  mayor  of  London  in  1347  and 
1354.11 

1  Ancient  Deeds  A  9086.  2  Vol.  10,  p.  426  ff.  8  Ancient  Deeds  A  1625.  4  idem,  A 
1472.  B  idem,  A  7833.  6  Vol.  1,  p.  319.  'Vol.  2,  p.  135,  6.  *  Morant's  Essex,  vol.  2, 
p.  123.  8Cf.  Cal.  Pat.  Roll.  1381-5,  p.  254.  10  Morant  vol.  2,  p.  75.  u  Memorials,  p.  450. 


10  CHAUCER'S  OFFICIAL  LIFE 

Robert  Louth  was  evidently  derived  from  a  Hertfordshire  fam- 
ily. A  Robert  de  Louth  was  custodian  of  the  castle  of  Hertford  and 
supervisor  of  the  city  of  Hertford  in  32  Edward  III  l  and  between 
1381  and  1385  was  Justice  of  the  Peace  for  Hertford.2  Probably 
Robert  de  Louth  was  a  younger  son,  for  John,  son  and  heir  of  Sir 
Roger  de  Louthe  (in  44  Edward  III)  deeded  land  in  Hertfordshire 
to  Robert  de  Louthe,  esquire,  his  uncle.3 

John  de  Romesey  comes  of  an  eminent  Southampton  family  of 
the  town  of  Romsey  4  which  can  be  traced  back  as  far  as  1228,  when 
Walter  of  Romsey  was  sheriff  of  Hampshire.  His  pedigree  is  given 
as  follows  by  Hoare : 5 

Walter  de  Romesey     34  Edward  I. 

I 
Walter  de  Romesey    23  Edward  III  =  Joan 

1 
John  de  Romesey  =  Margaret  d.  and 

(Co.  Somerset)  heir  of ? 

Hugh  Strelley  was  a  member  of  the  family  of  Strelley  (Straule) 
of  Nottingham  and  Derby.  From  the  fact  that  his  name  does  not 
occur  in  the  pedigree  given  in  Thoroton's  History  of  Notting- 
hamshire 6  and  that  he  held  lands  of  Nicholas  de  Strelley  by  the 
fourth  part  of  a  knight's  fee,7  it  is  clear  that  he  belonged  to  a  sub- 
ordinate branch  of  the  family.  Further,  he  was  even  a  younger  son 
of  this  secondary  stock,  for,  as  brother  and  heir  of  Philip  de  Strel- 
ley, son  and  heir  of  William  de  Strelley,  he  inherited  lands  in  47 
Edward  III.8 

Gilbert  Talbot  was  second  son  of  Sir  John  Talbot  of  Richard's 
Castle  in  Herefordshire.9 

Hugh  Wake  may  be  the  Hugh  Wake  who  married  Joan  de 
Wolverton  and  whom  Lipscombe  connects  with  the  lordly  family 
of  Wake  of  Buckinghamshire.10 

These  eighteen  or  nineteen  esquires,  then,  are  the  only  ones  in 
the  long  lists  whose  family  connections  I  have  been  able  to  trace. 
Certain  others — as  for  example  the  various  Cheynes — Hugh,  Roger, 

1  Cal.  Rot.  Pat.  Turr.  Lon.,  p.  169  b.  *  Cal.  Pat.  Roll  index.  » Ancient  Deeds,  D 
4213.  *  Woodward,  Wilks,  Lockhart,  History  of  Nottinghamshire,  vol.  1,  p.  352.  "His- 
tory of  Wilts,  vol.  3,  Hundred  of  Cawdon,  p.  13.  •  Vol.  2,  p.  220.  7  Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  1392, 
p.  56.  »C.  R.  211,  Mem.  38.  •  Cf.  Nicolas:  Scrope-Orosvenor  Roll,  vol.  2,  p.  397. 
10  Lipscombe's  Buckinghamshire,  vol.  4,  p.  126.  He  is  quite  wrong  as  to  the  date  of  this 
Hugh's  death.  Cf.  Close  Rolls,  1361,  pp.  228-9  which  show  that  Hugh  was  living  at  this 
date. 


THE  ESQUIRES  OF  THE  KING'S  HOUSEHOLD  11 

Thomas,  John  and  William — Robert  la  Souche,  Simon  de  Burgh 
and  Geoffrey  Stucle — may  have  been  derived  from  noble  families  of 
their  name.  In  that  case,  however,  they  were  certainly  not  in  the 
direct  line  of  descent,  for  their  names  do  not  appear  in  the  pedigree 
of  those  families.  On  the  other  hand  many  of  the  names  would  seem 
to  indicate  that  their  possessors  came  from  obscure  families.  In 
several  cases,  for  example,  esquires  practically  gave  up  their  own 
names  and/were  called  by  occupational  names.  So  the  Richard  des 
Armes  of  the  records  was  probably  "Richard  de  Careswell  vadlet 
del  armes"  *  who  had  charge  of  the  king's  personal  armour.  Reyn- 
old Barbour  is  once  called  Reynold  le  Barber.2  Roger  Ferrour  was 
one  of  the  king's  shoe-smiths,3  and  his  personal  name  was  Roger 
Bonyngton.4  Robert  Larderer  is  never  mentioned  in  the  records, 
but  Robert  Maghfeld,  called  king's  larderer,  is  mentioned.5  No 
Richard  Waffrer  occurs  on  the  records  (although  the  name  occurs 
three  times  in  the  household  lists),  but  Richard  Markham,  wafferer, 
occurs  frequently.6  Richard  Leche,  called  king's  surgeon,7  was 
probably  identical  with  Richard  Irlonde,  king's  surgeon.8  John 
Leche  also  was  king's  surgeon,  but  I  have  found  mention  of  him 
under  no  other  name.9  Robert  Vynour  was  vine-keeper  or  gardener 
to  Edward  III.10  Certain  of  the  other  names,  though  apparently 
family  names,  seem  to  be  of  occupational  or  place  origin,  e.  g. 
Thomas  Spigurnel,  Simon  de  Bukenham,  John  de  Beverle,  Hen- 
ricus  Almannia,  Cornelius  de  Ybernia,  William  de  York,  etc.  Fin- 
ally some  names  by  their  very  character  could  scarcely  be  the 
names  of  noble  families,  e.  g.  Walter  Whithors,  Walter  Chippen- 
ham,  John  Cat,  etc. 

From  what  I  have  been  able  to  find  out  about  the  families  of 
some  of  these  men,  from  the  character  of  the  names,  and  from  the 
fact  that  the  families  of  the  great  bulk  of  the  esquires  cannot  be 
traced,  it  is  clear  that  the  esquires  of  the  king's  household  were 
chiefly  recruited  either  from  the  younger  sons  of  knightly  families, 
or  from  quite  undistinguished  stock.  In  three  cases — those  of  John 
Legge,  Thomas  Hauteyn  and  Thomas  Frowyk — it  seems  probable 
that  they  came — as  Chaucer  did — from  merchants'  families  in 
London. 

1  Exchequer  K.  R.  Accts.  392,  15.  *  Issues  P.  220  (32  Edw.  III).  »  1378  Cal.  Pat. 
Roll,  p.  153.  *Rich.  II,  Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  p.  597.  B  Issues  P.  222,  mem.  21.  "Devon's  Is- 
sues 1370,  p.  22,  p.  34.  Cal.  Pat.  Roll  1378,  p.  179.  7  37  Edw.  III.  Issues  P.  230, 
mem.  unnumbered.  8  Devon's  Issues  1370,  pp.  103,  333.  B  Cal.  Pat.  Roll  1378,  p.  178; 
1383,  p.  283.  "Devon's  Issues  1370,  p.  115. 


12  CHAUCER'S  OFFICIAL  LIFE 

APPOINTMENT 

We  can  scarcely  expect  any  outright  statement  of  the  reasons  in 
general  or  in  particular  for  the  appointment  of  esquires.  Neverthe- 
less I  find  two  circumstances  which  may  indicate  the  conditions  of 
appointment;  first,  some  previous  connection  of  their  fathers  with 
the  king's  court,  and  second,  some  previous  connection  on  their  own 
part  with  the  household  of  one  of  the  king's  children.  Of  those  whose 
fathers  or  relatives  had  been  in  the  court,  may  be  mentioned  John 
Beauchamp,1  Patrick  Byker,2  Nicholas  Careu,3  Robert  Corby,4  Col- 
lard  Dabrichecourt,5  Robert  de  Ferrers,6  and  William  Burele7  (who 
was  son  of  the  Sir  John  de  Burley  with  whom  Chaucer  was  asso- 
ciated on  one  mission).  Of  course  John  Legge's  father — as  mayor 
of  London — must  have  been  known  at  court,  and  one  of  Thomas 
Hauteyn's  progenitors  had  been  receiver  of  king's  customs  at 
London.8 

Even  more  interesting  is  the  case  of  those  esquires  who  before 
entering  the  king's  service  had  been  in  the  household  of  one  of  his 
children — i.  e.  Edward  the  Black  Prince,  Lionel,  duke  of  Clarence 
(or  his  wife),  John  of  Gaunt,  Isabella,  wife  of  Ingelram  de  Coucy, 
and  Edmund,  Count  of  Cambridge.  Roger  Archer,  Griffith  de  la 
Chambre,  Henry  de  Almaigne  and  Richard  Torperle  seem  to  have 
been  in  the  service  of  Isabella,  the  king's  daughter,  for,  in  the 
grants  of  annuities  which  they  received,  special  mention  is  made  of 
their  service  to  her.9  Possibly  they  were  always  in  her  service. 
Stephen  Romylowe  is  expressly  called  esquire  of  Edward  prince  of 
Wales  (the  Black  Prince) ,  and  he  held  an  annuity  from  that  prince.10 
Richard  Wirle  signed  an  indenture  to  serve  John  of  Gaunt  as  an 
esquire  in  46  Edward  III,  after  the  date  at  which  he  is  mentioned 
in  the  household  books.11  Since  he  seems  never  to  have  received  an 
annuity  from  the  king,  or  a  grant — except  in  one  instance  for  his 
wages  in  the  wars — it  seems  likely  that  he  was  never  actually  in 
the  king's  service,  but  rather  in  that  of  John  of  Gaunt.  Robert 
Ursewyk  was  connected  in  some  way  with  John  of  Gaunt  and  also 
with  Edmund,  Count  of  Cambridge,  son  of  Edward  III.12  Roger 
Mareschall,  John  Joce  and  Robert  Bardolf  held  annuities  of  twenty 

»Cf.  p.  6,  supra.  *  p.  6.  *  p.  6.  *  p.  7.  •  p.  7.  •  p.  8.  T  Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  1378, 
p.  283.  8Cf.  p.  9,  supra.  •  Issues  P.  241,  mem.  11.  P.  239,  mem.  15.  P.  301,  mem. 
10.  Pat.  Roll  272,  mem.  22,  285  mem.  25.  10  Cal.  Pat.  Roll  1378,  p.  197,  1385,  p.  26. 
u  Dnchy  of  Lancaster  Registers  No.  13.  f.  125  dorso.  "  idem  f.  94.  Pat.  Roll,  274, 
mem.  29. 


THE  ESQUIRES  OF  THE  KING'S  HOUSEHOLD  13 

pounds  each  per  annum  from  Lionel  Duke  of  Clarence  1  and  so  were 
probably  at  one  time  in  his  service.  Finally  the  most  interesting 
case  of  all  is  that  of  Geoffrey  Stucle,  whose  career  and  employments 
curiously  parallel  Chaucer's  and  who  in  29  Edward  III  was  valet 
to  Elizabeth,  Countess  of  Ulster.2 

CLASSIFICATION 

The  two  lists  in  the  household  books  classify  the  members  of 
the  household  in  different  ways — one  list  according  to  function  and 
the  other,  apparently,  according  to  length  of  service.  The  first  is 
the  system  according  to  which  the  schedule  of  names  conjecturally 
dated  December  1368  3  was  made,  and  the  latter  is  the  system  gov- 
erning the  list  of  September  1,  1369  (number  58  Chaucer  Records, 
page  172.)  A  glance  at  the  second  of  these  and  comparison  with 
the  first  will  show  how  it  was  made  up.  It  classifies  the  esquires  in 
two  groups —  "esquiers  de  greindre  estat"  and  "esquiers  de  mein- 
dre  degree."  Looking  at  the  names  of  the  "esquiers  de  greindre 
estat ' '  we  notice  that  the  first  thirteen  are  names  which  appear  in  the 
group  of  "esquiers"  of  1368,  that  the  next  ten  are  identical — even  in 
the  order  of  occurrence — with  the  list  of  "seriantz  des  armes"  of 
1368,  that  the  following  seven  are  the  first  seven  in  the  list  of 
"sergeantz  des  offices  parvantz  furrures  a  chaperon"  of  1368  (in 
the  same  order),  that  then  Andrew  Tyndale  who  in  1368  was  an 
"esquier  ma  dame"  appears,  and  is  followed  by  the  rest  of  the 
"sergeantz  des  offices  parvantz  furrures,"  etc.,  (in  the  same  order 
as  in  1368)  that  the  next  six  were  in  1368  "esquiers  ma  dame,"  and 
that  finally  occur  ten  names  not  found  in  the  lists  of  1368.  From 
this  comparison  it  is  clear  that  the  list  of  1369  was  made  up  from  a 
series  of  lists  of  different  departments  in  the  king's  household. 

The  list  of  "esquiers  de  meindre  degree"  of  1369  was  doubtless 
made  in  the  same  way,  although  the  evidence  is  not  so  conclusive. 
The  first  twenty-two  names  correspond  to  names  in  the  list  of  es- 
quiers of  1368;  the  next  eleven  occur  in  the  list  of  "esquiers  sur- 
venantz"  of  1368;  the  following  five  appear"  among  the  "esquiers 
ma  dame"  of  1368;  the  next  thirteen  do  not  occur  in  the  lists  of 
1368 ;  but  the  following  eight  correspond  even  in  order  to  the  list 
of  "esquiers  fauconers"  of  1368. 

1  Cal.  Pat.  Roll  1383,  p.  326.  *  Issues,  P.  212,  mem.  22,  27.  "Printed  as  number  53 
of  the  Chaucer  Records  (page  162). 


14  CHAUCER'S  OFFICIAL  LIFE 

It  is  therefore  clear  that  we  have  here  a  cross  division.  That  the 
list  of  1368  gives  a  division  according  to  function  is  clear  from  the 
titles  of  all  groups  except  one.  The  esquires  classified  as  ' '  f  aucon- 
ers,"  "survenantz,"  "ma  dame,"  etc.,  performed  the  functions 
suggested  by  those  titles — a  fact  which  can  be  demonstrated  by 
many  references  to  the  function  of  these  men  in  other  documents. 
In  the  case  of  the  one  exception,  the  ' '  sergeantz  des  offices  parvantz 
furrures  a  chaperon,"  it  is  clear  that  they  performed  duties  similar 
to  those  of  the  "esquiers  survenantz."  For  example,  Richard  des 
Armes  was  valet  of  the  king's  arms; *  William  Blacomore  was  one 
of  the  king's  buyers,  subordinate  to  the  purveyor  of  fresh  and  salt 
fish,2  John  de  Conyngsby  was  likewise  a  buyer  of  victuals  for  the 
household,3  John  Goderik  and  John  Gosedene  were  cooks  in  the 
household ;  4  Richard  Leche  was  king 's  surgeon,5  Thomas  de  Stanes 
was  sub-purveyor  of  the  poultry;6  "William  Strete  was  the  king's 
butler; 7  Edmond  de  Tettesworth  was  the  king's  baker,8  etc.  Hence 
it  is  clear  that  all  these  performed  duties  which  in  the  main  were  of 
a  menial  character. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  division  into  two  groups  in  the  list  of 
1369  seems  to  indicate  not  the  function  of  the  esquires,  but  their 
rank  in  the  household.  Their  rank,  in  turn,  appears  to  be  deter- 
mined by  various  considerations — function  (all  the  falconers  of 
1368  are  enrolled  among  the  esquires  of  less  degree  in  1369),  length 
of  service,  and  to  some  extent  considerations  which  are  not  mani- 
fest. That  length  of  service  played  some  part  in  the  division  seems 
clear  from  a  study  and  comparison  of  the  careers  of  the  various 
men.  Since  we  are  interested  in  knowing  particularly  the  signifi- 
cance of  the  classification  of  Chaucer  who  appeared  in  1368  as  an 
esquier,  I  shall  confine  myself  to  a  consideration  of  the  "esquiers" 
of  that  year.  The  names  of  the  esquires  of  greater  degree  with 
the  date  at  which  they  are  first  mentioned  in  connection  with  the 
household  (in  documents  outside  the  household  books)  follow: 
Johan  Herlyng.  18  Edward  III  (1344)9 
Wauter  Whithors.  1343  10 
Johan  de  Beverle.  36  Edward  III  (1362)11 

1  Exchequer,  K.  R.  Accte.  392,  12,  f.  36  dorso.  idem.  No.  15.  *  C.  R.  1359  p. 
545.  »Pat.  Roll  276,  mem.  4.  *  Pat.  Roll  1378,  p.  212,  Devon's  Issues,  1370,  p.  311. 
5  idem.  P.  230  mem.  not  numbered.  e  C.  R.  1359,  p.  545.  7  Issues,  P.  228,  mem.  38. 
•Pat.  Roll,  1378,  p.  224.  •  Abb.  Rot.  Orig.,  vol.  2,  p.  165.  10  C.  R.,  p.  203.  "Pat. 
Roll  2C5,  mem.  17. 


THE  ESQUIRES  OF  THE  KING'S  HOUSEHOLD  15 

Johan  Romeseye.  35  Edward  III  (1361)1 
Wauter  Walsh.     36  Edward  III.  (1362) E 
Roger  Clebury.     1349  3 
Helmyng  Leget.     33  Edward  III.  (1359)4 
Rauf  de  Knyveton.     35  Edward  III.    (1361)5 
Richard  Torperle.     38  Edward  III.  (1364)6 
Johan  Northrugg.     37  Edward  III.  (1363)7 
Hanyn  Narrett.     38  Edward  III.  (1364) 8 
Symond  de  Bokenham.     37  Edward  III.  (1363)9 
Johan  Legg.     36  Edward  III.  (1362)10 
The  ' '  esquiers  de  meindre  degree ' '  follow : 
Hugh  Wake.     1353  " 

Piers  de  Cornewaill.     37  Edward  III.  (1363)12 
Robert  Ferrers.     1370  13 
Robert  Corby.     43  Edward  III.  (1369)14 
Collard  Daubrichecourt.     44  Edward  III.  (1370)15 
Thomas  Hauteyn.     41  Edward  III.  (1367)16 
Hugh  Cheyne.     32  Edward  III.  (1358)17 
Thomas  Foxle.18 
Geffrey  Chaucer. 

Geffrey  Styuecle.     31  Edward  III.  (1356) 19 
Symon  de  Burgh.     44  Edward  III.  (1370) 20 
Johan  de  Tychemerssh.    No  mention  outside  of  house- 
hold books,  where  he  appears  for  first  time  in  1368. 
Robert  la  Zouche.     29  Edward  III.  (1355) 21 
Esmon  Rose.     17  Edward  III.  (1343)22 
Laurence  Hauberk.     1370  23 
Griffith  del  Chambre.     28  Edward  III.  (1354) 24 
Johan  de  Thorpe.     30  Edward  III.    (1356) 25 

1Pat.  Roll  264,  mem.  24.  2  idem  266,  mem.  47.  'idem,  p.  227.  *  Issues,  P.  223, 
mem.  32.  B  Pat.  Roll  264,  mem.  18.  8  idem  272,  mem.  22.  7  Issues,  P.  232,  mem.  5. 
8  Issues,  P.  237,  mem.  17.  B  Pat.  Roll  267.  mem.  7.  10  idem  266,  mem.  3.  «  idem,  p. 
380.  u  idem  268,  mem.  18.  M  Rymer  III,  902.  "  C.  R.  mem.  23,  dorso.  The  last  two 
are  difficult  to  distinguish  from  their  fathers  of  the  same  name  who  had  been  in  the 
King's  court  before  their  time.  1B  Pat.  Roll  281,  mem.  18.  M  idem  1399,  p.  65.  Issues, 
P.  250,  mem.  2.  "  Cal.  Pat.  Roll  1378,  p.  248.  18 1  cannot  identify  him  surely;  a 
Thomas  de  Foxle  was  in  the  King's  court  in  4  Edw.  Ill  ff  (Abb.  Rot.  Orig.  II,  p.  39)  ;  he 
was  growing  old  in  1352  (Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  p.  270)  and  died  30  Edw.  Ill  (Cal.  Inq.  P.  M. 
II  220,  leaving  his  property  to  a  son  and  heir  John).  "Issues,  P.  217,  mem.  114.  In 
29  Edw.  Ill  in  service  of  Countess  of  Ulster.  20  Cal.  Pat.  Roll  1378,  p.  189.  » Issues, 
P.  213,  mem.  24.  22  Cal.  Pat.  Roll  1348,  p.  39.  M  Issues  1370,  Devon,  pp.  136,  444. 
24  Issues,  P.  294,  mem.  18.  25  idem,  P.  214,  mem.  8. 


16  CHAUCER'S  OFFICIAL  LIFE 

Thomas  Hertfordyngbury.     41  Edward  III.  (1367)1 
Hugh  Straule.    No  certain  mention  as  valet  or  esquire. 
Hugh  Lyngeyn.     37  Edward  III.  (1363)2 
Nicholas  Prage.     33  Edward  III.  (1359)8 
Richard  Wirle.  No  record  as  valet  or  esquire  of  the  king. 
A  comparison  of  the  two  sections  shows  that  the  first  contains 
the  names  of  two  men  whose  service  goes  back  as  far  as  1343,  1344, 
and  that  it  contains  the  name  of  no  one  who  was  not  by  1364  asso- 
ciated with  the  court.    The  second  section,  on  the  other  hand,  con- 
tains but  one  name  of  a  date  earlier  than  1353  and  several  which 
do  not  occur  in  the  records  before  the  time  of  this  document,  or 
in  fact  until  a  year  or  two  later.    The  fact  however  that  in  a  num- 
ber of  cases  the  second  section  contains  names  of  men  who  entered 
the  household  years  before  others  whose  names  occur  in  the  first 
section  makes  it  seem  probable  that  special  circumstances  might  in- 
fluence the  classification  of  a  given  esquire. 

Linked  with  this  problem  of  classification  is  one  of  nomen- 
clature— the  use  of  the  terms  "vallettus"  and  "esquier"  (or,  the 
Latin  equivalents  of  the  latter,  "armiger"  and  "scutifer").  Chau- 
cer scholars  have  generally  assumed  that  the  term  "esquier"  repre- 
sents a  rank  higher  than  ' '  vallettus. "  But  they  give  no  evidence 
in  support  of  this  distinction,  and  we  are  interested  in  knowing 
whether  it  is  correct  or  not.  A  first  glance  at  the  list  of  1369,  to  be 
sure,  and  the  observation  that  cooks  and  falconers,  a  shoe-smitli  * 
and  a  larderer6  are  called  "esquiers"  there,  might  lead  one  to 
think  that  the  word  can  have  but  a  vague  force  and  no  real  differ- 
ence in  meaning  from  "vallettus."  But  an  examination  of  other 
documents  shows  that  the  use  of  the  term  "esquier"  in  the  house- 
hold lists  does  not  represent  the  customary  usage  of  the  time.  It  is 
to  be  noted  for  example  that  many  of  the  "esquiers"  of  1369  (prac- 
tically all  of  the  "esquiers  des  offices"8  etc.,  and  the  "esquiers 
survenantz"  of  1368)  are  not  called  esquires  in  the  list  of  1368,  the 
Patent  Rolls,  Close  Rolls,  Issue  Rolls  or  Fine  Rolls.  William  de 
Risceby  and  Thomas  Spigurnell  are  the  only  clear  exceptions  to 
this  rule.  Of  the  "esquiers  survenantz"  I  have  noted  eighteen 
references  with  mention  of  title,  in  seventeen  of  which  the  man 

*Pat.  Roll  275,  mem.  13.  *  idem  267,  mem.  37.  'Exchequer  K.  R.  Accts.,  Bundle 
392,  No.  15.  «Pat.  Roll  1378,  p.  158.  'Issues  (Devon)  1370,  p.  45.  •  For  indication 
of  their  function  see  p.  14. 


THE  ESQUIRES  OF  THE  KING'S  HOUSEHOLD  17 

named  is  called  "vallettus"  or  "serviens."  Of  the  "serjeantz  des 
offices,"  Richard  des  Armes  is  called  "vallettus"  or  "serviens"  in 
twelve  different  entries,  never  ' '  esquier. "  *  I  have  noted  thirty- 
five  other  references  to  men  in  the  same  classification  with  the  title 
"vallettus. " 2  It  is  clear  then  that  although  the  usage  is  not 
strict  these  men  were  really  of  the  rank  of  "vallettus,"  and  that  this 
rank  was  lower  than  that  of  ''esquier. "  Possibly  the  household 
books  used  the  term  "esquier"  in  this  loose  way  out  of  courtesy, 
but  the  other  documents — which  were  strictly  official — for  the  most 
part  used  it  more  exactly  in  accordance  with  a  man's  actual  rank. 
From  a  study  of  the  records  of  the  "esquiers"  of  1368  (the 
group  to  which  in  that  year  Chaucer  belonged)  we  learn  further 
conditions  under  which  the  terms  "vallettus"  and  "armiger"  or 
"scutifer"  are  used.  In  nearly  all  cases  these  esquires  in  the 
early  years  of  their  career,  are  called  ' '  vallettus, ' '  after  some  years 
of  service  they  are  occasionally  called  "armiger,"  and  finally  after 
the  passage  of  more  years  are  always  called  "armiger"  or  "scuti- 
fer."  Demonstration  of  this  fact  would  take  pages  of  mere  refer- 
ences; but  it  can  be  indicated  in  a  typical  case,  that  of  Geoffrey 
Stucle,  chosen  because  of  the  fact  that  his  classification  is  through- 
out the  same  as  Chaucer's.  In  31,  33,  and  35  Edward  III  he  is 
called  "vallettus,"  in  36  Edward  III,  he  appears  once  as  "scuti- 
f er, ' '  and  twice  as  ' '  vallettus  " ;  in  37  Edward  III  he  is  once  named 
"vallettus";  in  38  Edward  III  he  is  called  once  "scutifer"  and 
another  time  "vallettus";  in  41  Edward  III  he  is  mentioned  twice 
as  "vallettus" ;  in  42  and  43  Edward  III  he  is  "armiger" ;  in  47  Ed- 
ward III  he  is  once  "vallettus"  and  once  "armiger";  in  49  Edward 
III  he  is  called  "armiger"  twice;  in  50  Edward  III,  and  1  and  2 
Richard  II  he  is  called  ' '  armiger. ' ' 3  From  this  and  the  other 
cases  in  the  list  of  esquires,  it  is  clear  that  the  term  "esquier"  (the 
equivalent  of  scutifer  and  armiger)  indicates  a  rank  above  that  of 
"vallettus."  The  members  of  Chaucer's  group,  in  nearly  every 
case,  were  at  first  entitled  "valletti"  and  then  in  course  of  time 
became  "esquiers." 

1  Pat.  Roll  265,  mem.  21,  279,  mem.  5,  273,  mem.  15,  355,  mem.  8,  Issues,  P.  207, 
mem.  4,  P.  217,  mem.  29,  etc.  2  Pat.  Roll  276,  mem.  4,  Issues,  P.  237,  Pat.  Roll  265,  mem. 
14,  266,  mem.  9,  idem,  mem.  47,  etc.  3  Pat.  Roll  269,  mem.  43,  273  mem.  35,  263  mem. 
1,  275  mem.  24,  293  mem.  19,  267  mem.  21,  Issues  P.  223,  mem.  17,  222  mem.  20,  A  169 
mem.  130,  P.  229,  mem.  22,  mem.  25  (twice)  P.  217,  mem.  14,  18,  P.  235,  mem.  1,  248 
mem.  not  numbered,  249  mem.  4,  264  mem.  not  numbered,  262  mem.  9,  271  mem.  17,  273 
mem.  20,  295  mem.  11. 


18  CHAUCER'S  OFFICIAL  LIFE 

Whatever  may  be  the  conclusion  with  regard  to  the  meaning  of 
those  titles,  however,  it  is  clear,  from  the  facts  cited  above,  that  the 
list  of  "esquiers"  of  1368  and  not  that  of  the  "esquiers  de  meindre 
degree"  of  1369,  gives  the  names  of  the  men  who  were  actually 
in  the  same  class  as  Chaucer.  Consequently  in  the  consideration  of 
the  esquires  which  follows  greater  attention  will  be  paid  to  the 
"esquiers"  of  1368  than  to  the  other  classes. 

SERVICES 

With  regard  to  the  services  which  the  Household  Books  prescribe 
for  the  esquires,  I  shall  say  nothing.  In  the  public  records,  how- 
ever, I  have  found  special  services  to  which  the  individual  esquires 
were  assigned.  In  the  first  place  certain  of  these  men — even  those 
who  appear  in  the  list  of  1368  as  "esquiers,"  and  in  that  of  1369 
as  ' '  esquiers  de  greindre  estat, "  or  ' '  esquiers  de  meindre  degree '  '- 
performed  special  functions  of  a  character  which  makes  it  seem  un- 
likely that  they  ever  did  the  service  which  the  Household  Books 
required  of  an  esquire  of  the  king's  household.  In  the  list  of  1368, 
for  example,  Esmon  Rose  was  custodian  of  the  great  horses  of  the 
king,1  Hugh  Lyngeyn  was  a  buyer  of  the  household,2  Nicholas  Prage 
was  first  king's  minstrel,  and  later  serjeant  at  arms,3  Simond  de 
Bokenham  was  chief  serjeant  of  the  larder,4  and  John  Legge  was 
serjeant  at  arms.8 

Secondly,  certain  of  the  esquires  held  special  offices  in  the  king 's 
chamber.  John  Herlyng  and  Walter  Walsh  were  ushers  of  the 
king's  chamber.6  John  de  Beauchamp  was  keeper  of  the  king's 
jewels  or  receiver  of  the  king's  chamber  for  some  years  up  to  11 
Richard  II  ;T  then  for  a  short  time  he  was  Seneschall  (steward) 
of  the  king's  household.8  Thomas  Cheyne  was  in  43  Edward  III 
keeper  of  the  keys  of  the  coffers  of  the  king's  jewels.9  John  de 
Salesbury  was  at  different  times  called  usher  of  the  king's  chamber 
and  keeper  of  the  king's  jewels.10  Helmyng  Leget  was  from  1362 
for  many  years  receiver  of  the  king's  chamber,  his  business  being 
to  keep  the  king's  money,  receive  it  from  various  people  and  pay  it 
out.11 

1  Issues,  P.  216,  mem.  18.  *  Pat.  Roll  1384,  p.  435.  *  Issues,  P.  228,  mem.  24, 
36  Edw.  Ill,  P.  273,  mem.  11,  50  Edw.  III.  «  Cal.  Pat.  Roll  1378,  p.  165.  B  Rymer  III, 
2,  891.  •  Cal.  Pat.  Roll  1378,  p.  133.  idem  p.  150.  7  Cal.  Pat.  Roll  1384,  p.  488.  •  Is- 
sues, P.  316,  mem.  2.  »  Pat.  Roll  279,  mem.  33.  10Cal.  Pat.  Roll  1385,  p.  15,  Cal.  Pat. 
Roll  1381-5  passim.  "  Rymer,  vol.  3,  p.  911. 


THE  ESQUIRES  OP  THE  KING'S  HOUSEHOLD  19 

Thirdly,  esquires  were  frequently  being  sent  about  England  on 
the  king's  business.  For  example  in  1385  Simon  de  Bukenham 
was  appointed  buyer  of  horses  for  the  king's  expedition  into  Scot- 
land ;  *  in  1370  Laurence  Hauberk  was  sent  to  Berwick-upon-Tweed 
and  from  there  by  sea-coast  to  retain  shipping  for  the  passage  of 
Robert  Knolles  to  Normandy ; 2  similarly  at  other  times  Helmyng 
Leget  and  John  Romesey,  John  de  Salesbury  and  Thomas  Spigur- 
nell  were  detailed  to  take  ships  for  royal  expeditions. 3  Again,  Wal- 
ter Whithors  in  1370  was  sent  to  York  to  borrow  money  from  divers 
abbots,  priors  and  others  for  the  king's  use,4  in  1370  John  de  Beau- 
champ  was  sent  to  the  abbot  of  Gloucester  to  borrow  money  for  the 
king's  use,5  and  in  7  Richard  II  Walter  Chippenham  was  assigned 
to  raise  money  for  the  king's  use  out  of  the  lands  of  the  late  Ed- 
mund Mortimer,  Count  of  March.6  In  5  Richard  II  Simon  de  Burgh 
was  appointed  to  inquire  into  the  possessions  held  by  the  rebels 
who  had  lately  risen  against  the  king  in  Cambridge.7  In  47  Edward 
III,  Nicholas  Dabridgecourt  was  appointed  to  convey  the  children 
of  Charles  of  Bloys  from  the  custody  of  Roger  Beauchamp  to  that 
of  Robert  de  Morton.8  Of  less  importance  but  equal  frequency 
are  the  employments  of  esquires  to  convey  money  from  the  king's 
treasury  or  from  some  customs  house  to  the  king's  wardrobe;  John 
de  Beauchamp  de  Holt  le  ffitz,  Hugh  Cheyne,  Rauf  de  Knyveton, 
Walter  Chippenham  and  Robert  la  Zouche  were  at  various  times  so 
employed.9 

Of  course  during  the  King's  wars  many  of  the  esquires 
served  in  the  army  abroad.  In  the  Issues  of  the  Exchequer  for 
1370,  for  example,  many  entries  of  this  type  appear — John  de 
Beverle — £  107  15  s.  5  d.  due  in  the  wardrobe  for  the  expenses  of 
himself,  his  men  at  arms  and  archers  in  the  war.  Devon  p.  483. 
Hugh  Cheyne,  idem,  p.  449.  Robert  de  Corby,  idem,  p.  461.  Col- 
lard  Dabridgecourt,  p.  461.  Helming  Leget,  idem  p.  447.  John 
Legge,  idem  p.  449.  Thomas  Spigurnell,  p.  490,  etc. 

Most  interesting  with  relation  to  Chaucer,  however,  is  the  em- 
ployment of  esquires  on  missions  abroad.  Apparently  certain  in- 
dividuals were  assigned  especially  to  this  kind  of  business  and 

1  Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  p.  579.  2  Devon's  Issues,  p.  136.  s  Issues,  P.  270,  mem.  not  num- 
bered, P.  262,  mem.  13,  P.  298,  mem.  23.  Rymer,  vol.  3,  p.  90.  *  Devon's  Issues,  p. 
111.  B  idem,  p.  153.  "Issues,  P.  308,  mem.  6.  Similarly  Geoffrey  Stucle,  P.  298,  mem. 
23.  7  idem,  P.  305,  mem.  3.  8  idem,  P.  262,  mem.  14.  8  Issues,  P.  229,  mem.  24,  P. 
217,  mem.  22,  Devon,  p.  156,  P.  281,  mem.  2,  P.  213,  mem.  24,  P.  229,  mem.  19. 


20  CHAUCER'S  OFFICIAL  LIFE 

many  of  these  were  kept  almost  constantly  engaged  in  it.  For  ex- 
ample, George  Felbrig,  in  51  Edward  III,  was  sent  on  the  King's 
secret  business  to  John  Duke  of  Brittany  in  Flanders.1  In  2  Rich- 
ard II  he  was  sent  with  John  Burle  and  others  on  King's  secret 
business  to  Milan.2  In  4  Richard  II  he  was  sent  to  the  King  of  the 
Romans  and  of  Bohemia  on  secret  business  touching  the  King's 
marriage.3  In  5  Richard  II  he  was  sent  again  to  Flanders.4  In 
11  Richard  II  (being  then  Knight  of  the  King's  chamber)  he  was 
sent  to  Middelburgh  to  receive  the  homage  of  the  Duke  of  Gueldres,5 
and  again  in  14  Richard  II  he  was  sent  on  the  King's  business  to 
the  King  of  the  Romans  and  of  Bohemia.8  That  the  service  was 
not  a  special  honour  but  merely  a  business  function  of  the  esquire 
is  clear  from  the  fact  that  Felbrig  was  on  one  occasion  called, 
"King's  messenger  beyond  seas."  7 

Similarly  Geoffrey  Stucle  (whose  career,  I  have  already  pointed 
out,  closely  parallels  Chaucer's)  made  many  voyages  abroad  in 
the  King's  business  between  33  Edward  III  and  2  Richard  II. 
In  33  Edward  III,  and  again  in  35  Edward  III,  he  was  sent  to 
Normandy  on  the  King's  business.8  On  many  of  his  missions  he 
merely  carried  letters  to  John  of  Gaunt,  (in  Devon's  Issues  1370, 
for  example,  five  such  missions  in  a  single  year  are  mentioned),  or 
to  various  nobles  directing  them  to  arm  themselves  for  an  expedition 
under  John  of  Gaunt.9  Likewise  Stephen  Romylowe  was  employed 
on  many  missions  from  25  Edward  III  on.10  In  30  Edward  III  he 
was  sent  "in  nuncio  domini  Regis"  to  Flanders,11  in  31  Edward  III 
on  another  mission,12  in  32  Edward  III  with  John  de  Beauchamp, 
banneret,  to  Holland,  Flanders,  Zealand,  etc.18  These  are  the 
most  important  examples  of  such  employment,  but  many  other 
esquires — notably  John  Padbury,  who  in  1368  was  an  "esquier 
survenant ' ' 14 — made  occasional  voyages. 

REWARDS 

The  regular  pay  of  an  esquire  of  the  household  was  seven  pence 
halfpenny  a  day.15  The  pay  of  a  King's  sergeant  at  arms  was 

1  Issues,  P.  274,  mem.  11.  2  idem,  P.  298,  mem.  20.  *  idem,  P.  303,  mem.  2.  *  idem, 
P.  305,  mem.  13.  •  idem,  P.  316,  mem.  2.  "idem,  P.  323,  mem.  5.  T  Cal.  Pat.  Roll  1384, 
p.  367.  *  Issues,  P.  223,  mem.  17,  A  169,  mem.  30,  mem.  38.  •  idem,  P.  262,  mem.  9. 
10  idem  25  Edw.  Ill,  P.  mem.  21,  87.  "idem,  P.  214,  mem.  not  numbered.  u  idem  P. 
217,  mem.  18.  "idem  P.  220,  mem.  15.  "Issues,  P.  294  (?)  mem.  20,  P.  211,  mem.  7, 
P.  214,  mem.  23,  P.  218,  mem.  2,  etc.  »CaI.  Pat.  Roll  1380,  p.  539,  1378,  p.  288. 


THE  ESQUIRES  OF  THE  KING'S  HOUSEHOLD  21 

twelve  pence  a  day — a  sum  usually  granted  for  life.1  It  is  to  be 
observed,  however,  that  the  sergeants-at-arms  received  very  few 
other  grants.  The  esquires,  on  the  other  hand,  received  extremely 
valuable  grants  in  great  numbers.  In  particular  they  were  given 
annuities,  grants  of  land,  grants  of  office,  custody  of  lands  belong- 
ing to  heirs  under  age,  usually  with  marriage  of  the  heir,  and 
corrodies  at  monasteries. 

Taking  up  the  first  of  these  I  shall  confine  myself  to  the  "es- 
quiers"  of  1368,  since — from  Chaucer's  position  in  the  lists  in  that 
year  and  in  1369 — they  would  seem  to  be  the  men  with  whom 
Chaucer  is  to  be  associated.  In  stating  the  amounts  of  the  annui- 
ties I  shall  give  the  total  sum  which  each  man  received.  The  names 
follow  in  the  order  of  the  lists  of  1368. 

Johan  de  Herlyng,  £  40,  -f  £  20  -f  i  13,  10  s.  1  d.  -f 
£  12,  10s.2 

Wauter  Whithors,  i  40.3 

Thomas  Cheyne,  £  20.4 

Johan  de  Beverle,  £  40,  8s.  9d.5 

Johan  de  Romesey,  £  20.6 

Wauter  Walssh,  £  20.7 

Hugh  Wake,  £  40.8 

Roger  Clebury,  £  10.9 

Piers  de  Cornewaill,  £  40.10 

Robert  de  Perers,  no  annuity  found. 

Elmyn  Leget,  20m.11 

Robert  de  Corby,  £  10.12 

Collard  Dabrichecourt,  £  10.13 

Thomas  Hauteyn,  £  10.14 

Hugh  Cheyne,  10m.15 

Thomas  Foxle — no  information  whatever.* 

Geffrey  Chaucer. 

Geffrey  Stucle,  £  20.16 

Simond  de  Burgh,  £  10  -f  10m.17 

*  Richard  Imworth,  Thomas  Stafford,  Thomas  Staples,  Wauter  de  Leycester,  etc.,  had 
grants  of  12d.  daily  for  life.   3  Cal.  Pat.  Roll  1378,  p.  133.     *  idem  1386,  p.  146.     *  Issues 
A,  169,  mem.   16.     B  Devon's  Issues  1370,  p.  35.     6  idem,  p.  29.     7  Issues,  P.  258,  mem. 
14.     *  Devon's  Issues  1370,  p.  372.     8  P.  216,  mem.  38.     10  P.  241,  mem.  11.     "Pat.  Roll 
260,  mem.  3.     12  idem  291,  mem.  1.     "idem  281,  mem.   18.     "Issues,   P.   250,  mem.   2. 
15  Pat.  Roll  255,  mem.  26.     "Devon's  Issues   1370,  p.   301.     "Cal.  Pat.   Roll   1378,  pp. 
189,  192. 

*  Outside  of  these  lists  I  have  been  able  to  find  no  information  about  these  men. 


22  CHAUCER'S  OFFICIAL  LIFE 

Johan  Tichemerssh — no  information  whatever.* 

Robert  la  Souche,  £  10.1 

Esmon  Rose  (and  wife,  Agnes  Archer)  40m.2 

Laurence  Hauberk — no  certain  information  as  esquire. 

Griffith  de  la  Chambre,  £  20.s 

Johan  de  Thorp,  10m.4 

Raulyn  Erchedeakne — no  information  whatever.* 

Rauf  de  Knyveton,  10m.5 

Thomas  Hertfordyngbury,  £  10.6 

Hugh  Strelley,  40m.T 

Hugh  Lyngeyn,  £  20.8 

Nicholas  Prage,  10m.9 

Richard  Torperle,  12  d.  daily.10 

Richard  Wirle,  no  annuity. 

Johan  Northrugge,  10m.11 

Hanyn  Narrett,  £  10.12 

Simond  de  Bokenham,  £  10.13 

Johan  Legge,  12  d.  daily.14 

In  only  two  cases  in  which  we  find  other  information  about  an 
esquire  do  we  find  no  annuity.  In  a  few  cases,  I  have  been  able  to 
find  out  nothing  at  all  about  the  men.  In  all  others,  annuities 
ranging  from  ten  marks  up  to  £  86  are  found.  Apparently  then  the 
receipt  of  an  annuity  was  absolutely  a  normal  feature  of  the  career 
of  an  esquire. 

None  of  the  other  forms  of  grants  was  given  so  systematically 
and  uniformly  as  that  of  annuities,  but  all  of  the  others  were  very 
common.  The  nature  and  extent  of  the  grants  of  land,  and  of 
guardianships,  will  appear  in  the  accounts  of  the  careers  of  in- 
dividual esquires.  They  are  so  irregular  in  their  character,  are 
changed  so  frequently  and  are  given  on  such  varying  conditions, 
that  an  accurate  list  could  scarcely  be  made. 

The  matter  of  grants  of  offices,  particularly  in  the  customs,  is, 
however,  more  easy  to  handle.  At  the  time  when  Chaucer  was  given 
his  controllership,  offices  in  the  customs  seem  to  have  been  used 

1  Issues,  P.  228,  mem.  3.  *  Cal.  Pat.  Roll  1378,  p.  187.  'Issues  P.  258,  mem.  12. 
*Cal.  Pat.  1378,  p.  157.  5  Devon's  Issues,  1370,  p.  156.  •  Cal.  Pat.  Roll  1378,  p.  217. 
7  Pat.  Roll  295,  mem.  4.  8  Pat.  Roll  1399,  p.  176.  'Devon's  Issues  1370,  p.  216. 
10  Cal.  Pat.  Roll  1378,  p.  150.  "  Issues,  P.  237,  mem.  17.  a  idem  P.  237,  mem.  17. 
"Cal.  Pat.  Roll  1378,  p.  165.  u  idem,  p.  186. 

*  See  note,  preceding  page. 


THE  ESQUIRES  OP  THE  KING'S  HOUSEHOLD  23 

regularly  as  sinecures  for  the  esquires.  In  1353  Griffith  de  la 
Chambre  was  granted  the  office  of  gauging  of  wine  in  the  towns  of 
Lenn  and  Great  Yarmouth.1  At  the  same  time  Roger  Clebury  re- 
ceived a  similar  grant.2  In  1343  William  de  Clopton  had  a  grant 
for  life  of  the  collectorship  of  the  port  of  London  with  wages  of 
£  20.  Apparently  he  did  not  actually  exercise  the  office  because 
certain  merchants  to  whom  the  king  had  farmed  the  customs  of  the 
realm  were  directed  to  pay  him  his  wages.3  In  1347  he  and  John 
Herlyng — another  esquire — were  collectors  of  the  petty  customs  in 
London.4  In  1352  and  again  in  1355  his  deputy  is  specifically  men- 
tioned.5 In  1346  John  de  Herlyng  was  granted  the  office  of  con- 
troller of  customs  in  Boston  (Pat.  Roll  p.  204).  In  1348  he  was 
granted  the  office  of  controller  of  wools,  hides  and  wool-fells,  wines 
and  all  other  merchandise  at  Newcastle-upon-Tyne  with  this  added 
provision,  "furthermore  because  he  stays  continually  in  the  King's 
company  by  his  order,  he  may  substitute  for  himself  a  deputy  in 
the  said  office,"  etc.6  In  1352  he  was  controller  of  the  customs  in 
the  port  of  Boston  and  likewise  in  that  of  Lenne — with  provision  in 
the  same  terms  as  those  above  for  a  deputy  in  the  latter  office 
— and  collector  of  the  petty  custom  in  London — with  deputy.7 
In  1359  he  surrendered  the  office  of  controller  of  customs  at  Bos- 
ton for  an  annuity  of  ten  marks.8  At  one  time  he  was  also  con- 
troller in  the  port  of  St.  Botolph.9  From  the  fact  that  the  records 
show  Herlyng  was  constantly  in  the  King's  court,  it  is  clear  that 
he  exercised  all  these  offices  by  deputy. 

In  35  Edward  III  Helmyng  Leget  was  granted  the  office  of 
keeper  of  the  smaller  piece  of  the  seal  for  recognizances  of  debts 
in  London,10  with  power  to  execute  the  office  by  deputy.  He  held 
this  office  until  1389. n  Edmund  Rose  held  the  office  of  keeper  of 
the  smaller  piece  of  the  seal  in  Norwich,  with  deputy.12  John  de 
Thorp  was  in  1380  appointed  controller  of  customs  of  wines,  wools, 
etc.  at  Southampton  on  condition  that  he  execute  the  office  in  per- 
son.13 Walter  Whithors  held  the  offices  of  keeper  of  the  smaller 
piece  of  the  seal  in  York,  in  1348,  and  tronager  of  wool  in  the  port 
of  Lenne  in  1352  with  deputy  in  both  offices.14 

iCal.  Pat.  Roll,  p.  411.  2  Cal.  Pat.  Roll  1352,  p.  411.  3  C.  R.  1343,  p.  194.  *  Ry- 
mer,  vol.  3,  p.  115.  B  Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  1352,  p.  327;  C.  R.  1355,  p.  166.  •  Cal.  Pat.  Roll, 
p.  130.  7Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  1352,  pp.  327,  348,  355.  8  idem  1378,  p.  133.  9  Devon's  Is- 
sues, 1370,  p.  381.  10Cal.  Pat.  Roll  1377-8,  p.  184.  "Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  p.  106.  "Idem 
1384,  p.  380.  M  Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  p.  564.  "  idem,  pp.  143,  293. 


24  CHAUCER'S  OFFICIAL  LIFE 

In  addition  to  offices  in  the  customs,  places  as  parker  of  a  King's 
forest,  or  keeper  of  a  royal  castle  were  frequently  given  to  the 
esquires.  So  Hugh  Cheyne  in  1378  had  the  custody  of  Shrewsbury 
Castle  with  wages  of  seven  pence  halfpenny  therefor.1  Helmyng 
Leget  and  Thomas  Cheyne  at  various  times  held  the  office  of  con- 
stable of  Windsor  Castle.2  John  de  Beverle  and  Robert  Corby 
likewise  had  the  constableship  of  the  castle  of  Ledes.3  William 
Archebald  was  forester  of  the  Forest  of  Braden.4  John  de  Beverle 
was  parker  of  Eltham  parks.5  Walter  Whithors  in  1349  was  stew- 
ard of  the  forest  of  Galtres.  Many  more  examples  of  such  grants  of 
offices  could  be  given. 

Many  of  the  esquires  received  corrodies — in  most  cases  probably 
commuted  for  a  certain  yearly  sum.  For  example,  William  Arche- 
bald held  a  corrody  at  Glastonbury  from  49  Edward  III 6  on  and 
yet  in  1378  is  stated  in  the  Patent  Rolls  to  have  been  retained  to 
stay  with  the  King.7  So  it  could  be  shown  in  most  cases  that 
esquires  holding  corrodies  did  not  by  any  means  live  constantly  in 
their  monasteries.  William  Gambon,  especially,  could  scarcely  have 
done  so  since  he  held  corrodies  at  Salop,  (Shrewsbury),  Hayles, 
Haylyng,  St.  Oswald  de  Nostell,  Coventre  and  Wenlok,  at  the  same 
time.8  Other  esquires  who  held  corrodies  and  the  names  of  their 
monasteries  follow:  John  Beauchamp,  Pershoore  (Wigorn)  ; 9  John 
Salesbury,  Stanlee ; 10  Simon  de  Bokenham,  Ely ; ll  Helmyng  Leget, 
Ramsey ; 12  Roger  Clebury,  Shrewsbury ; 13  Peter  Cornwaill, 
Redyng ; 14  John  Herlyng,  Convent  of  Church  of  Christ,  Canter- 
bury ; 15  Hugh  Lyngeyn,  Dunstaple ; 16  Stephen  Romylowe,  Barde- 
nay.17 

Grants  of  wine  are  scarcely  so  common  as  the  other  kinds  of 
grants  and,  so  far  as  I  have  found,  they  are  not  usually  given  to 
prominent  esquires.  John  Roos  had  a  grant  of  two  tuns  of  wine 
yearly; 18  William  Risceby  of  "one  doliurn"  or  two  pipes  of  Gas- 
con wine ; 19  William  Strete  and  William  Archebald  each  of  one  tun 
of  Gascon  wine  yearly ; 20  John  De  Beverle  and  Thomas  Cheyne  each 
of  two  dolia  of  Gascon  wine  yearly ; 21  and  Hugh  Lyngeyn  of  one 
tun  of  red  wine  of  Gascony  yearly.22 

1  Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  p.  248.  *  Pat.  Roll  279,  mem.  33.  *  idem  272,  mem.  27,  Exchequer 
K.  R.  Accte.  393-7.  *  Pat.  Roll  290,  mem.  13.  »  Cal.  Pat.  Roll  1378-80,  p.  143.  •  C.  R. 
213,  mem.  17.  7  Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  p.  135.  *  C  R.  235,  mem.  22,  dorso.  •  C.  R.  228,  mem. 
4,  dorso.  "idem  235,  mem.  31  dorso.  ll  C.  R.  235,  mem.  26  dorso.  "  C.  R.  235, 
mem.  10  dorso.  "Cal.  C.  R.  1356,  p.  334.  "  C.  R.  215,  mem.  7  dorso.  » C.  R.  222, 
mem.  29  dorso.  "  C.  R.  226,  mem.  26  dorso.  >T  C.  R.  221,  mem.  41  dorso.  "Cal.  Pat. 
Roll  1384,  p.  446.  "Pat.  Roll  289,  mem.  25.  »  Cal.  Pat.  Roll  1378,  pp.  135,  277. 
"Pat.  Roll  271,  mem.  21.  » Cal.  Pat.  Roll  1399,  p.  185. 


THE  ESQUIRES  OF  THE  KING'S  HOUSEHOLD  25 

One  feature  of  the  form  of  royal  grants  remains  to  be  men- 
tioned. Writers  on  Chaucer  have  frequently  called  attention  to 
the  fact  that  his  grants  contain  a  statement  that  they  are  made  for 
good  service  done.1  This  is  merely  a  regular  part  of  the  form  of  a 
grant.  Any  enrollments  of  grants — such  as  those  noted  on  the  pre- 
ceding page — will  give  examples  of  the  use  of  this  phrase.  Further, 
the  form  of  grant  practically  always  includes  a  characterization  of 
the  grantee  as  "dilectus  vallettus,"  "dilectus  serviens,"  "dilectus 
armiger,"  etc. 

MARRIAGE 

The  wives  of  the  esquires  came  chiefly  from  two  classes — first, 
the  "domicellae"  of  the  queen's  retinue,  and  second,  the  daughters 
and  heiresses  of  country  gentlemen.  Esquires  who  married  wives 
from  the  second  class  frequently  owed  a  great  part  of  their  im- 
portance in  the  county  to  the  estates  which  their  wives  brought. 
So,  frequently  in  the  county  histories  occurs  an  account  of  some 
esquire  whose  family  and  antecedents  the  writer  has  been  unable 
to  trace,  but  who  was  prominent  in  the  county — sheriff  perhaps  or 
Knight  of  the  Shire — as  a  result  of  the  lands  he  held  in  right  of 
his  wife.  An  example  of  this  is  Helmyng  Leget,  who  was  member 
of  Parliament  for  Essex  in  7  and  9  Henry  IV,  and  sheriff  in  1401 
and  1408.  He  had  married  Alice,  daughter  and  coheir  of  Sir 
Thomas  Mandeville  and  received  the  estates  of  Stapleford-Taney, 
Bromfield,  Chatham  Hall  in  Great  Waltham  and  Eastwick  in 
Hertfordshire.2  Similarly  John  de  Salesbury,  who  had  received 
from  the  King  a  grant  of  the  custody  of  the  estates  of  John  de 
Hastang  defunct,  and  of  the  marriage  of  the  latter 's  daughter  and 
heir  Johanna,  married  the  lady  himself  and  held  in  her  right  exten- 
sive lands.3 

John  Beauchamp  married  Joan,  daughter  and  heir  of  Robert 
le  Fitzwyth.4  Simond  de  Bokenham  married  Matilda  Gerounde, 
who  brought  him  the  only  land  he  possessed  at  his  death.5  Hugh 
Cheyne  married  Joan,  daughter  and  heir  of  John  de  Wodeford.6 
Robert  Corby  married  Alice,  daughter  and  heir  of  Sir  John  Gous- 
all.7  Collard  Dabrichecourt  married  Elizabeth,  daughter  and  heir  of 

1  Cf .  Hales,  Lounsbury  ante.  2  Morant's  Essex  vol.  2,  p.  75;  vol.  1,  part  2,  p.  179. 
*  Pat.  Roll  292,  mem.  21,  idem  289,  mem.  30,  Dugdale's  Warwick,  p.  313.  4  Ancient  Deeds, 
A  8171.  BPat.  Roll  267,  mem.  7,  Inq.  P.  M.  vol.  3,  p.  173.  6  Abb.  Rot.  Orig.  II,  264. 
7  Hasted's  Kent  II,  428. 


26  CHAUCER'S  OFFICIAL  LIFE 

Sibilla,  daughter  of  Thomas  de  Saye,  and  held  in  her  right  Strath- 
field-Saye.1  George  Felbrig  married  Margaret,  daughter  of  Eli- 
zabeth dame  de  Aspall,  and  received  with  her  certain  lands  in  Nor- 
folk and  Suffolk.2  Robert  Ferrers  married  Elizabeth  Boteler, 
daughter  and  heir  of  William  Boteler  of  Wemme.3  John  Legge 
married  Agnes  de  Northwode,  coheir  of  the  manour  of  Ertindon  in 
Surrey.4  Hugh  Wake  married  Joan  de  Wolverton  and  received 
lands  with  her.5  Walter  Walssh  married  Joan  Duylle,  widow  of 
John  Fletcher,  called  "bel,"  and  received  with  her  the  house  of 
Gravebury,  which  she  and  her  former  husband  had  held.6  Walter 
Whithors  married  Mabel,  daughter  and  coheir  of  Philip  Niweham 
(or  Newnham.)7 

Even  more  interesting — because  of  their  analogy  with  Chaucer's 
marriage — are  the  instances  of  marriage  with  the  queen's  damsels. 
In  one  case,  at  least,  this  kind  of  alliance  was  considered  a  meritor- 
ious action  on  the  part  of  the  esquire  concerned,  for  not  only  did  he 
receive  an  annuity  therefor,  but  ever  afterwards  when  a  payment 
was  made  on  the  annuity,  the  circumstances  were  given  in  full. 
"To  Edmund  Rose,  valletus,  to  whom  the  King  has  given  ten 
pounds  per  annum  to  be  received  at  the  Exchequer,  for  good  ser- 
vice rendered  to  the  King  and  because  he  has  married  Agnes  Archer 
formerly  damsel  to  Queen  Philippa.  "8  Similarly  Roger  Archer 
(called  "esquier  ma  dame,"  and,  in  the  grant,  valet  to  Isabella, 
daughter  of  Edward  III)  married  Alexandra  de  la  Mote  damsel 
to  Isabella.9  It  is  curious  that  in  both  these  cases  the  maiden  name 
of  the  wife  is  given  in  the  Issue  Rolls  for  years  after  the  grant  of 
the  annuities. 

In  the  other  cases  only  the  surname  of  the  husband  is  given. 
These  cases  are:  Walter  Wyght  and  Margaret  Wyght,10  Thomas 
and  Katherine  Spigurnell,11  John  and  Almicia  de  Beverle,12  John 
and  Stephanetta  Olney,13  Robert  and  Joan  Louth,14  Piers  and  Alice 
Preston,18  Hugh  and  Agatha  Lyngeyn16  and  John  and  Margaret 
Romsey.17 

1  Beltz.  Mem.  of  Garter,  p.  90  ff,  Woodworth,  Wilks,  Lockhart,  Hampshire  III,  274. 
'Abstracts  and  Indexes — Duchy  of  Lancaster  I,  157.  'Dugdale  I,  269,  Cal.  Inq.  P.  M. 
Ill,  333.  « Manning's  Surrey  I.  85.  •  Baker's  Northampton  II,  252.  •  Pat.  Roll  290, 
mem.  14.  7  Dngdale's  Warwickshire,  p.  86.  8  Issues,  P.  210,  P.  204;  mem.  5,  etc.  •  Pat. 
Roll  273,  mem.  8.  Issues,  P.  213,  mem.  22.  "Issues,  P.  221,  mem.  11.  »  L.  R.,  p. 
172,  C.  R.  1357,  p.  351,  404,  438.  u  L.  R.  p.  172,  Cal.  Inq.  P.  M.  Ill,  29.  u  L.  R., 
p.  172.  Issues,  P.  241,  mem.  8.  "  L.  R.  p.  172,  Pat.  Roll  264,  mem.  39.  15  Pat.  Roll 
1378,  p.  125.  "Issues,  P.  272,  mem.  13.  "idem,  P.  200,  mem.  19,  Hoare's  Wilts, 
Hundred  of  Cawdon,  p.  13. 


THE  ESQUIRES  OP  THE  KING'S  HOUSEHOLD  27 

THE  CAREERS  OF  THE  INDIVIDUAL  ESQUIRES 

In  the  preparation  of  this  study,  I  have  collected  all  the  facts 
I  could  find  about  the  esquires  of  1368. x  Since  the  essential  facts 
about  them  have  been  ciscussed  in  the  preceding  pages,  however, 
I  shall  present  in  detaL  the  careers  of  only  three  or  four  typical 
esquires.  Of  the  others,  John  de  Herlyng,  for  many  years  usher 
of  the  King's  chamber,  received  many  grants  from  the  King  and 
held  many  offices;  Thomas  Cheyne,2  keeper  of  the  royal  jewels, 
fought  in  the  wars  in  France  and  received  grants  of  lands  and 
wardships;  John  de  Romeseye  acted  at  various  times  as  royal  mes- 
senger, and  as  royal  treasurer  at  Calais;  Walter  Walssh,  another 
usher  of  the  King's  chamber,  received  the  custody  of  the  posses- 
sions of  an  alien  abbey,  and  the  grant  of  a  house  and  land;  Hugh 
Wake  made  journeys  on  the  King's  service  and  received  some 
grants;  Roger  Clebury  and  Piers  de  Cornewaill  received  a  few 
grants;  Robert  de  Ferrers  had  the  grant  of  a  manor;  Helmyng 
Leget,  for  years  receiver  of  the  King's  Chamber,  had  many  grants 
of  land  and  custodies ;  Robert  de  Corby  had  the  grant  of  a  manor ; 
Collard  Dabrichecourt  had  grants  of  manors  and  offices;  Thomas 
Hauteyn  received  one  custody  and  one  grant  of  land  in  Ely ;  Hugh 
Cheyne  had  a  few  grants;  the  only  Thomas  Foxle  I  find  trace  of, 
who  died  in  30  Edward  .III,  received  some  grants;  Simond  de 
Burgh  is  mentioned  in  many  financial  transactions  of  the  time,  and 
he  was  for  some  time  treasurer  of  Calais;  of  John  Tichemerssh,  I 
find  no  mention,  and  of  Robert  la  Souche  very  little ;  Esmon  Rose 
was  keeper  of  the  King's  horses;  information  about  Laurence 
Hauberk  is  ambiguous  since  there  seem  to  have  been  two  or  more 
men  of  that  name ;  Griffith  de  la  Chambre  and  John  de  Thorpe  re- 
ceived minor  grants;  of  Raulyn  Erchedeakne  I  find  no  mention; 
Thomas  Hertfordyngbury,  Hugh  Strelley,  Hugh  Lyngen,  Nicholas 
Prage  and  Richard  Torperle  received  various  small  grants;  Rich- 
ard de  Wirle  appears  only  as  an  esquire  of  John  of  Gaunt;  about 
John  Northrugge  and  Hanyn  Narrett,  I  find  very  little ;  Simond  de 
Bokenham  was  chief  sergeant  of  the  King's  larder;  and  John  Legge, 
who  seems  to  have  been  really  an  esquire  at  arms,  met  his  death  in 
the  Peasant's  Revolt. 

1  A  statement  of  the  facts  will  be  found  deposited  in  the  University  of  Chicago  Li- 
brary. J  Of.  Froissart  XX,  562. 


28  CHAUCER'S  OFFICIAL  LIFE 

WALTER  WHITHORS 

Walter  Whithors  is  mentioned  in  the  records  first  in  1343  when 
he  received  an  order  granting  him  his  wages  for  life,  and  the  cus- 
tody of  the  River  Fosse  for  life.1  In  1346  he  was  granted  two  mar- 
riages, in  1347,  five  marks  a  year,  the  tronagership  of  Lenn,  and 
the  constableship  of  Conisborough  Castle.2  In  1348  the  King  granted 
Whithors  all  the  tenements  and  rents  in  the  city  of  London  which 
were  in  the  King's  hands  by  reason  of  the  forfeiture  of  a  certain 
William  de  Mordon.3  In  the  same  year  he  was  given  the  custody 
of  the  smaller  piece  of  the  seal  for  recognizances  of  debts  in  the 
city  of  York.4  In  1349  he  received  a  grant  of  forfeited  houses  in 
the  county  of  York,5  and  likewise  a  mill  and  more  lands  forfeited 
by  William  de  Mordon.6  Furthermore  he  was  given  in  the  same 
year  the  right  to  dispose  of  some  of  these  latter  lands.7  In  1349 
further  he  was  granted  the  stewardship  of  the  forest  of  Galtres, 
and  the  roots  of  all  trees  cut  down  in  that  forest.8  In  1352  the 
office  of  tronage  of  the  wools  at  Lenne  was  granted  to  his  former 
deputy,  at  the  request  of  Walter  Whithors  who  surrendered  a 
grant  of  that  office.9  Next  year  he  was  given  an  annuity  of  twenty 
marks,  and  also  the  right  to  exercise  the  office  of  recognizances  of 
debts  by  deputy,  "because  he  stays  continually  in  the  King's  ser- 
vice, at  his  side. " 10  In  the  same  year  he  was  granted  the  custody 
of  the  forest  of  Lynton,  adjacent  to  Galtres.11 

In  1360  Whithors  was  granted  certain  houses  in  York  formerly 
belonging  to  Richard  de  Snaweshull,12  and  also  the  custody  of  the 
lands  and  tenements  formerly  belonging  to  Nicholas  de  Litton,  dur- 
ing the  minority  of  the  heir.13  In  1361  he  was  given  a  messuage  and 
shop  formerly  owned  by  Walter  Ragoun  in  London  and  worth  forty 
shillings  yearly.14  From  a  document  of  the  same  year  we  learn  some- 
thing about  the  marriage  of  his  daughter.  By  this  document 
Stephen  Wydeslade,  cousin  and  heir  of  Thomas  Branche,  acknowl- 
edged a  debt  of  two  hundred  pounds  to  Whithors,  which  is  to  be 
paid  in  the  form  of  an  annuity  of  twelve  marks  to  Mary,  daughter 
of  Whithors  and  widow  of  Thomas  Branche.  She  is  to  have  further 
as  dower  certain  manors  in  Norfolk  and  Surrey.  Her  husband  had 

1  C.  R.,  p.  203.  *Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  pp.  37,  69,  284,  451,  545.  »  Cal.  Pat.  Roll, 
p.  48.  •  idem,  p.  143.  'idem,  p.  261.  'idem,  p.  333.  T  idem,  p.  440.  8  idem,  pp.  368, 
433 — apparently  with  deputy,  for  in  Cal.  Pat.  Roll  1352,  p.  214,  a  lieutenant  is  men- 
tioned, 'idem,  pp.  267,  293.  "idem,  pp.  380,  498.  "Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  p.  417. 
"  Pat.  Roll  256,  mem.  5.  "  idem,  mem.  13.  w  idem  261,  mem.  12. 


THE  ESQUIRES  OF  THE  KING'S  HOUSEHOLD  29 

been  a  ward  of  her  father's  and  had  died  a  minor.1  In  1363  Whit- 
hors  was  pardoned  the  payment  of  all  moneys  which  he  had  drawn 
in  advance  from  the  wardrobe.2  Likewise  in  the  same  year  he  had 
a  grant  of  the  marriage  of  the  son  and  heir  of  John  Colvyll, 
Chivaler,  defunct.3  In  1363  he  received  a  grant  of  the  custody  of 
the  Palace  of  Westminster  and  the  prison  of  the  Fleet,4  and  of 
the  custody  of  all  lands  and  tenements  formerly  the  property  of 
William  Bruyn,  defunct.5  In  1365  Whithors  had  a  grant  of  the 
manour  of  Naburn  with  pertinences  in  York,  formerly  the  property 
of  a  felon.6 

In  1370  he  was  granted  free  warren  in  Brenchesham,  Surrey.7 
And  in  the  same  year  and  nearly  until  his  death,  he  had  an  annuity 
of  forty  marks  a  year  as  usher  or  doorkeeper  of  the  King's  free 
chapel  of  Windsor.  For  this  office  also  he  received  twelve  pence  a 
day  ' '  because  that  the  same  Lord  the  King  charged  the  same  Walter 
to  carry  a  wand  in  the  presence  of  the  said  Lord  the  King,  before 
the  college"  when  the  King  personally  should  be  there,  "and  that 
the  same  Walter  might  be  able  more  easily  to  support  that  charge. ' ' 8 
In  that  year  likewise  he  was  sent  to  York  to  borrow  money  from 
divers  abbots,  priors  and  others  for  the  King 's  use.9  In  1373  he  and 
Isabella  his  wife  acquired  by  a  devious  series  of  transfers  a  mess- 
uage of  land  with  reversion  to  their  son  Walter.10  In  1377  Gerard 
Brocas  acknowledged  a  debt  of  160  m.  to  Walter  Whithors.11  In 
1377  he  was  granted  the  lands  and  tenements  of  Simon  Raunville, 
defunct,  and  the  marriage  of  his  heiress  to  Ralph,  son  of  Walter 
Whithors.  In  1383  he  was  still  exercising  the  office  of  custodian  of 
the  smaller  piece  of  the  seal  for  York  by  deputy.12  Three  years 
later  the  King  at  his  supplication  granted  his  annuity  of  forty 
marks  to  another.13  In  1387  he  was  apparently  dead,  for  the  King 
granted  to  another  the  office  of  usher  of  St.  George's  Chapel,  and 
the  house  which  he  had  occupied.14 

According  to  Dugdale,  Walter  Whithors  married  Mabel,  daugh- 
ter and  coheir  of  Philip  Neweham  (or  Newnham)  of  Neunham 
Padox  in  Warwick.  Their  son  and  heir  was  Sir  Ralph  Whitehorse 
Kt.15 

1  0.  R.,  p.  134.  2Pat.  Roll  262,  mem.  15.  8  idem  262,  mem.  18.  *  idem  265,  mem. 
15.  B  idem,  mem.  17.  8  idem  270,  mem.  34.  7  Gal.  Rot.  Chart,  p.  187.  8  Devon's  Issues, 
p.  101.  'idem,  p.  111.  10  Pat.  Roll  287,  mem.  4.  U0.  B.  216,  mem.  8  dorso.  u  Oal. 
Pat.  Roll,  p.  242.  "idem,  p.  146.  "idem,  p.  297.  15  Warwickshire,  p.  86. 


30  CHAUCER'S  OFFICIAL  LIFE 

JOHN  DE  BEVERLE 

John  de  Beverle  is  particularly  interesting  to  us  because  in 
1376  he  was  joined  with  Chaucer  as  surety  for  William  de  Beau- 
champ  when  the  latter  received  the  custody  of  the  castle  and  county 
of  Pembroke.1  The  first  mention  of  him  in  the  public  records  occurs 
in  36  Edward  III  when  he  was  granted  the  custody  of  all  the  lands 
and  tenements  of  James  de  Pabenham,  Knight,  defunct,  during  the 
minority  of  the  heir,2  and  when  he  and  Amicia  de  Bockeshill  his  wife 
were  granted  twenty  pounds  yearly  by  the  king.3  In  the  next  year 
he  was  granted  the  office  of  constable  of  the  castle  of  Limerick  and 
certain  water  rights  at  the  same  place.4  In  38  Edward  III  John  de 
Beverle,  who  was  holding  the  manor  of  Pencrich,  Staffordshire, 
from  the  king  in  capite,  having  acquired  it  from  John,  son  and 
heir  of  Hugo  Blount,  was  pardoned  the  transgression  committed  in 
entering  upon  it.  In  the  same  year  he  was  granted  the  right  to 
hold  a  fair  at  Pencrych.5  In  39  Edward  III,  he  received  a  grant 
of  two  tenements  in  the  parish  of  St.  Michael  atte  Corne,  London,6 
at  the  customary  rent ;  he  established  a  chantry  ~  :  and  received  a 
grant  of  the  constableship  of  the  castle  of  Leeds  for  life,  with  wages 
100s.  therefore.8  In  39-40  Edward  III,  he  was  granted  the  right  of 
free  warren  in  Mendlesden,9  Hertfordshire.  In  39  Edward  III,  he 
was  granted  the  manor  of  Mendlesden 10  and  two  dolia  of  Gas- 
con wine  yearly.11  In  40  Edward  III,  the  king  granted  his 
mother,  Matilda,  a  number  of  tenements  and  shops  in  London.12  He 
himself  was  in  that  year  granted  the  manor  of  Bukenhull  for  life, 
with  reversion  to  his  heirs,13  and  the  custody  of  the  manor  of  Melton 
in  Kent  during  the  minority  of  the  heir.14  He  seems  also  in  that 
year  to  have  sold  to  the  Count  of  Arundell  and  others  his  manor  of 
Pencrych.15 

In  41  Edward  III  John  de  Beverle  was  granted  the  manor  of 
Bofford  in  Oxford.16  In  the  next  year  he  was  granted  the  right 
to  hunt  in  the  parks  and  forests  of  the  king,  with  this  prologue: 
"Redeuntes  ad  memoriam  obsequia  et  servicia  placida  que  dilectus 
armiger  noster  Johannes  de  Beverlee  nobis  non  absque  periculis 

1  L.  R.,  p.  213.  *  Pat.  Roll  265,  mem.  17.  'idem  266,  mem.  29.  *  idem  267,  mem. 
6,  8.  »Cal.  Rot.  Chart,  p.  185.  «  Cal.  Rot.  Pat.  Tur.  Lon.,  p.  179  b.  ~  Inq.  Ad.  Quod 
Damnum,  p.  335.  *  Cal.  Rot.  Pat.  Tur.  Lon.,  p.  180.  •  Cal.  Rot.  Chart,  p.  185.  10  Pat. 
Roll  272,  mem.  4.  "idem  271,  mem.  21.  u  idem  274,  mem.  2.  "idem  273,  mem.  87. 
"idem  274,  mem.  43.  "idem  273,  mem.  13.  "idem  276,  mem.  6. 


THE  ESQUIRES  OF  THE  KING'S  HOUSEHOLD  31 

et  rerum  despendiis  a  longo  tempore  impendit"  etc.1  In  43  Ed- 
ward III  permission  was  given  to  Walter  Bygod,  miles,  to  grant  at 
farm  to  John  de  Beverle  the  manors  of  Alfreston  (Essex)  and 
Marham  (Norfolk)  at  a  rent  of  i  200  to  Walter  Bygod.2 
In  that  year  also  a  grant  by  Ingelram  de  Courcy  to  John  de 
Beverle  of  the  manor  of  Tremworth  in  Kent  was  confirmed  by  the 
king.3  Finally  he  was  granted  the  parkership  of  Eltham  forest 
for  life  with  pay  of  three  pence  per  day.4  He  was  at  this  time 
drawing  an  annuity  of  i.  40,  8s.  9d.  for  life  and  he  was  also  paid  (in 
this  year,  1370)  i  107,  15s.  5d.  for  his  wages  and  those  of  his  men 
at  arms  and  archers  in  the  war.5  In  1371  he  was  paid  100m.6 

In  44  Edward  III  the  king  granted  John  de  Beverle  the  manor 
of  Rofford  in  Oxfordshire,7  and  the  custody  of  the  lands  of 
John  de  Kaynes,  defunct,  during  the  minority  of  his  heir.8  In 
46  Edward  III  the  king  granted  him  the  custody  of  all  the 
lands  of  Walter  Bygod,  chivaler,  in  Essex  and  Norfolk,  with  mar- 
riage of  the  heir.9  He  was  also  in  that  year  granted  an  annuity 
of  33s.  4d.  and  the  manor  of  Rodbaston  in  Staffordshire.10  The 
next  year,  John  de  Beverle  received  a  grant  of  the  reversion  to  two 
parts  of  the  manor  of  Godyngdon  in  Oxfordshire  and  Buckingham- 
shire, and  also  of  the  manor  of  Bokenhull  in  Oxfordshire.11  He 
was  at  that  time  paying  ten  pounds  yearly  for  the  farm  of  the 
manor  of  Godingdon.12  In  48  Edward  III  he  received  a  grant  of 
the  goods  and  chattels  of  Thomas  de  la  Bere,  an  outlaw,13  and  also 
of  all  the  trees  cut  down  in  Eltham  forest.14  Finally  he  had  a 
grant  of  the  manor  of  Bikenhull  (sic).15  In  49  Edward  III  he  was 
granted  certain  tenements  and  rents  in  London.16  In  50  Edward 
III,  he  and  his  wife  acquired  the  manor  of  Pencrych  (Stafford) 
from  Thomas,  son  of  Hugo  Blount,  Knight,17  and  he  was  granted 
custody  of  the  lands  of  John  Ferrers,  Knight,  with  marriage  of  the 
heir.18  In  1377  he  was  one  of  the  witnesses  to  Edward  Ill's  will.19 
In  1377  he  testified  against  Alice  Ferrers  before  Parliament.  He 
said  that  she  took  care  not  to  say  anything  about  the  matter  under 

1  Pat.  Roll  278,  mein.  8.  2  idem  279,  mem.  12.  8  idem  280,  mem.  28.  *  idem  279; 
mem.  28.  B  Devon's  Issues  1370,  pp.  35,  81.  6  Rymer,  old  ed.  VII,  178.  '  Cal.  Rot. 
Pat.  Turr.  Lon.,  p.  186.  Error  for  Bofford?  8  Pat.  Roll  281,  mein.  2.  9  idem  287,  mem. 
5.  10  idem  287,  mem.  18,  34.  "  idem  289,  mem.  17.  "  Cal.  Rot.  Pat.  Turr.  Lon., 
p.  188.  "  Pat.  Roll  290,  mem.  8.  14  idem  290,  mem.  10.  « idem  290,  mem.  30. 
"idem  292,  mem.  28.  17  C.  R.,  mem.  1.  18  Pat.  Roll  295,  mem.  23.  "Test  Vet.,  p.  12. 


32  CHAUCER'S  OFFICIAL  LIFE 

dispute  before  him.     (Ele  soi  gardst  bien  de  lui  qu'ele  ne  parla 
rien  en  sa  presence.)1 

In  1377  we  find  an  acknowledgement  of  one  hundred  marks 
which  John  de  Beverle  had  lent  to  the  king  for  the  expeditions  over 
sea,2  and  in  this  year  he  is  said  to  have  been  armour-bearer  to  the 
king3  (Edward  III).  In  1  Richard  II,  he  acquired  a  rent  of 
forty  shillings  from  lands  and  tenements  in  Buckenhull.4  In 
1378  certain  men  were  imprisoned  for  a  debt  of  one  hundred  pounds 
to  John  de  Beverle  and  Joan  de  Bokkyng,8  and  in  that  year  he 
paid  twenty  pounds  for  leave  to  alienate  certain  property  of  six 
marks  rent  which  he  held  from  the  king.  In  1378  he  was  retained 
to  serve  Richard  II  and  confirmed  in  his  possession  of  the  office 
of  parker  of  Eltham  parks,  an  annuity  of  ten  pounds  and  the  fee 
farm  rent  of  eighty-one  pounds  for  the  manor  of  Hedyngdom.6 
In  1380  his  office  of  constable  of  the  castle  of  Leeds,  the  profits 
of  the  mills  there  and  the  custody  of  the  park  there,  were  exchanged 
for  ten  pounds  to  be  deducted  yearly  from  his  rent  of  twenty 
pounds  paid  to  the  king  for  the  manor  of  Tremworth.7 

In  1381  John  de  Beverle  was  dead  leaving  seven  manors  and 
other  property.8  In  17  Richard  II  his  wife,  Amicia,  had  become 
the  wife  of  Robert  Bardolf,  miles.9 

In  the  index  to  his  Froissart,  Kervyn  de  Lettenhoeve  describes 
John  de  Beverle  as  "moult  grant  baron  d 'Angleterre '  and  refers 
to  a  list  of  chevaliers  who  were  going  to  Portugal  in  1384  with  the 
master  of  the  order  of  St.  James.10  This  was  certainly  not  our  John 
de  Beverle  because  the  latter  was  dead  in  1381. 

GEFFREY  STUCLE 

The  first  mention  I  find  of  Geffrey  Stucle  is  in  1347  when  he 
had  a  grant  of  the  bailiwick  of  Cork  in  Ireland  made  at  the  request 
of  Henry,  Earl  of  Lancaster.11  This  grant  was  confirmed  by  one 
of  32  Edward  III — an  inspeximus  and  confirmation  of  letters  patent 
of  Maurice,  Count  Dessemond,  according  to  which  Maurice  granted 
the  bailiwick  of  Cork  to  Geffrey  Styeucle  at  the  request  of  Lionel, 
Count  of  Ulster.  According  to  this  last  document  Stucle  had  the 
office  with  all  its  fees  and  privileges  and  was  to  pay  for  it  a  rose 

1  Rot.  Parl.,  p.  14.  *  Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  p.  29.  *  Dunkin's  Oxfordshire  I,  197.  *  Ms. 
Cal.  C.  R.,  p.  14.  BCal.  Pat.  Roll,  p.  130.  •  Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  p.  143.  T  idem,  p.  506. 
•  Cal.  Inq.  P.  M.  Ill,  29.  •  C.  R.  235,  mem.  35.  10  Cf.  Rymer  old  ed.  VII,  451.  "  Cal. 
Pat.  Roll,  p.  367. 


THE  ESQUIRES  OF  THE  KING'S  HOUSEHOLD  33 

yearly  at  the  feast  of  St.  John  the  Baptist.1  In  1348  also  a  state- 
ment is  made  that  Stucle  is  going  to  Brittany  on  the  king's  service. 

In  29  Edward  III  Stucle  appears  under  entirely  different  cir- 
cumstances: he  is  then  "vallettus"  of  the  Countess  of  Ulster  and 
is  paid  forty  shillings  and  sixty  shillings  for  attending  to  certain 
business  of  the  countess.2  Again  he  is  mentioned  as  "vallettus" 
of  the  Countess  of  Ulster,  staying  in  London  on  her  affairs,  and 
paid  sixty  shillings  therefor.3  In  31  Edward  III  he  had  a  grant — 
as  "vallettus"  of  the  king's  household — of  ten  marks  per  annum, 
"for  good  services  to  the  king,"  etc.4  Evidently  then  Stucle 
came  into  the  king's  household,  just  as  Chaucer  did,  from  the 
household  of  Elizabeth,  Countess  of  Ulster,  and  it  is  to  be  noted 
that  he  received  an  annuity  within  a  year  or  a  little  more,  possibly 
as  soon  as  he  shifted  to  the  king's  service.  In  the  same  year  he  was 
sent  on  a  mission  of  the  king's  and  paid  26s.  8d/'  In  33  Edward  III 
he  was  sent  on  the  king's  secret  business  to  Normandy  and  paid 
£16,13s.4d.  for  his  wages.6  He  was  paid  ten  pounds  more  in  the 
same  year  for  a  mission  of  the  king's — possibly  the  same  as  the 
foregoing.7  In  35  Edward  III  he  was  sent  on  the  king's  business 
to  Normandy  and  paid  ten  pounds  for  his  wages.8  Likewise  in 
the  same  year  he  was  paid  twenty  pounds  for  his  wages  in  going 
to  France  and  Normandy  in  the  diplomatic  service  of  the  king — 
possibly  the  same  as  the  foregoing.9  In  36  Edward  III  he  was  paid 
ten  pounds  for  going  on  another  journey  10  and  £6,13s.4d.  for  a 
journey  on  the  king's  business  to  Britanny.11  In  the  same  year  he 
was  paid  sixty  shillings  for  his  robe.12  In  37  Edward  III  he  was 
sent  to  Jersey  in  the  company  of  Elizabeth,  Countess  of  Ulster,13 
and  his  annuity  was  increased  to  twenty  marks.14 

In  38  Edward  III  Stucle  was  granted,  at  his  own  request, 
custody  of  all  lands  and  tenements  which  were  formerly  the  prop- 
erty of  Richard  de  la  Rynere,  defunct,  during  the  minority  of  the 
heir.13  In  39  Edward  III  he  went  on  a  diplomatic  mission  to  the 
duke  of  Britanny,  and  was  paid  £26,13s.4d.  therefor.16  In  40 
Edward  III  he  was  granted  one  tenement  and  two  shops  in  the 
parish  of  St.  Michael  over  Cornhill,  London.17  In  41  Edward  III 

1  Pat.  Roll  255,  mem.  29.  2  Issues,  P.  212,  mem.  22,  27.  3  idem,  P.  294,  (214?) 
mem.  23.  *  Issues,  P.  217,  mem.  14.  B  idem,  mem.  18.  'idem,  P.  223,  mem.  17.  7  idem, 
P.  222,  mem.  20.  8  idem  A  169,  mem.  30.  9  idem  A  169,  mem.  38.  "Issues,  P.  228, 
mem.  2.  "  idem,  P.  229,  mem.  25.  ™  idem.  1J>  idem,  P.  232,  mem.  20.  14  Pat.  Roll  267, 
mem.  21.  13  idem  269,  mem.  43.  "Issues,  P.  239,  mem.  31.  "Pat.  Roll  273,  mem.  35. 


34  CHAUCER'S  OFFICIAL  LIFE 

he  was  paid  forty  pounds  for  a  mission  to  Spain.1  In  42  Edward 
III  he  was  paid  forty  pounds  for  a  journey  to  the  Prince  of 
Aquitain.2  In  1370  he  was  given  ten  marks  in  addition  to  his 
wages  for  the  five  voyages  which  he  had  made  to  Calais  for  the  king.3 
In  that  year  also  he  was  sent  on  secret  business  of  the  king  to 
Nottingham.4 

In  47  Edward  III,  Stucle  was  sent  to  Flanders  with  certain 
letters  of  privy  seal  directed  to  various  bannerets  and  knights  of 
the  king's  retinue  who  were  staying  in  Germany,  directing  them  to 
prepare  themselves  to  go  with  John,  duke  of  Lancaster,  to  France 
on  the  king's  business.5  For  this  he  was  paid  £13,6s.8d.  and  he 
received  ten  pounds  more  for  a  journey  to  Flanders  with  letters 
directed  to  Simon,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury.6  In  49  Edward  III 
he  was  sent  to  Brugges  to  report  to  the  council  the  results  of  the 
conference  between  the  ambassadors  of  the  king  and  the  king  of 
France  for  a  treaty  of  peace.7  In  the  same  year  he  was  granted 
custody  of  all  the  lands  and  tenements  formerly  belonging  to  John 
Dakeneye,  chivaler,  defunct,  with  marriage  of  the  heir.8  In  50 
Edward  III  he  was  paid  ten  pounds  for  transacting  certain  arduous 
business  pertaining  to  the  king  in  Flanders.9  In  1  Richard  II, 
Stucle  was  sent  to  Leycester  with  a  letter  of  private  seal  directed 
to  John,  King  of  Castile  and  Leon,  Duke  of  Lancaster,  certifying 
to  the  duke  the  death  of  the  countess  of  March  and  excusing  the 
count  of  March  on  that  account  from  his  journey  to  the  north.10  In 
the  same  year  he  was  sent  to  the  north  with  a  letter  directed  to  John 
of  Lancaster  ordering  the  latter  to  come  to  London  to  the  king's 
council.11  In  2  Richard  II  he  was  paid  a  hundred  shillings  for  a 
journey  to  various  parts  of  England  to  get  money  for  a  royal 
expedition.12  In  1378  his  grant  of  an  annuity — here  stated  to  be 
twenty  pounds — was  confirmed  and  he  was  retained  in  the  king's 
service.13  In  10  Richard  II  it  is  stated  that  Richard  de  la  Panetrie 
had  married  his  widow;  evidently  he  had  not  been  dead  long  for 
the  king  paid  to  his  widow  £37,6s.8d.  due  to  him.14 

1  Issues,  P.  248,  mem.  not  numbered.  2  Issues,  P.  249,  mem.  4.  8  Devon's  Issues,  p. 
409.  *  idem.  •  Issues,  P.  262,  mem.  9.  •  idem  264,  mem.  not  numbered.  T  idem,  P. 
271,  mem.  17.  8  Pat.  Boll  293,  mem.  19.  •  Issues,  P.  273,  mem.  20.  10  idem  295,  mem. 
1L  u  idem  295,  mem.  17.  u  idem,  P.  298,  mem.  23.  »  Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  p.  181.  "Issues, 
P.  315,  mem.  11. 


THE  ESQUIRES  OF  THE  KING'S  HOUSEHOLD  35 

GEORG  FELBRIGC} 

Mention  of  George  Felbrig  first  occurs  in  34  Edward  III  when 
he  was  granted  an  annuity  of  twenty  marks.1  In  37  Edward  III 
George  Felbrigg  and  "William  Elys  were  granted  the  farm  of  all 
the  customs  except  those  of  wool  and  wool-fells  in  the  town  of 
Magne  Jernemuth  for  one  year.2  They  seem  to  have  held  this  farm 
for  a  number  of  years,  certainly  in  40  and  41  Edward  III,  by 
yearly  grants  and  at  a  rent  of  twenty-two  pounds  per  annum.3 
In  1370  he  was  paid  £31,  11s.  10  d.  for  the  expenses  of  himself 
his  men  at  arms,  and  archers  in  the  war.3a  In  44  Edward  III 
he  was  receiving  an  annuity  of  twenty  pounds,*  and  in  the  same 
year  he  had  a  grant  at  farm  of  the  hundred  of  Northerpyng- 
ham,  and  Southerpyngham,  paying  fifty  pounds  yearly  therefor.5 
In  47  Edward  III  he  was  granted  custody  of  the  priory  of  Tostes 
at  a  farm  of  sixty-three  pounds  yearly.6  In  48  Edward  III  the 
bailiff  of  fees,  etc.,  in  Norfolk  and  Suffolk  was  ordered  by  the 
Duke  of  Lancaster  to  deliver  the  lands  and  tenements  late  belonging 
to  Elizabeth,  Dame  de  Aspall,  to  George  de  Felbrigge  who  had 
married  Margaret,  daughter  of  the  said  Elizabeth.7  In  49  Edward 
III  he  was  granted  a  messuage  with  pertinences  in  Grippewic.8  In 
50  Edward  III  he  had  a  grant  of  the  "balliva"  of  the  hundred  of 
Eockeford  in  Essex,  and  also  of  the  custody  of  Haddele  Castle.9 
In  51  Edward  III  he  was  sent  on  secret  business  of  the  King  to 
John,  duke  of  Brittany,  in  Flanders,  and  paid  £13,  6s.  8d.  for  his 
wages  for  the  journey.10 

In  1377  he  is  said  to  have  been  one  of  the  jury  that  found  Alice 
Ferrers  guilty  of  maintenance11 ;  certainly  he  witnessed  against  her 
before  Parliament.12  In  2  Richard  II  he  was  sent  on  secret  busi- 
ness of  the  King  with  John  de  Burle  and  others  to  Milan ;  for  the 
voyage  he  received  £23,  6s.  8d.13  In  4  Richard  II  he  was  sent  to 
the  King  of  the  Romans  and  of  Bohemia  on  secret  business  con- 
nected with  the  marriage  of  the  King,  and  paid  £66,  13s.  4d.  for  the 
journey.14  In  1382  he  and  John  Herlyng  acquired  a  messuage  and 
sixty  acres  of  land.15  In  5  Richard  II  he  was  paid  for  a  certain 

1  Pat.  Roll  261,  mem.  2.  2  idem  268,  mem.  49.  8  Fine  Roll  167,  mem,  10,  168,  mem. 
16,  3a  Devon  p.  440.  *  Devon's  Issues,  p.  66.  B  Fine  Roll  171,  mem.  26.  "idem  174, 
mem.  16.  'Abstracts  and  Indexes  (Long  Room — Rec.  Off.)  I,  157  dorso.  8  Pat.  Roll 
293,  mem.  3.  »  Abb.  Rot.  Orig.  II.  310.  10  Issues,  P.  274,  mem.  11.  » Blomefield's 
Norfolk  VIII,  107  ff.  12  Rot.  Parl.  p.  14.  13  Issues,  P.  298,  mem.  20.  u  Issues,  P.  303, 
mem.  2.  » Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  p.  121. 


36  CHAUCER'S  OFFICIAL  LIFE 

voyage  to  Germany  £75,  6s.  8d.  and  for  a  voyage  on  king's  secret 
business  to  Flanders,  ten  pounds.1  In  1384  he  was  granted  for 
life  the  ten  pounds  yearly  due  from  him  from  the  issues  of  the 
Castle  of  Colchester.  In  this  document  his  services  as  King's 
messenger  beyond  the  seas  are  expressly  mentioned.2  He  seems  to 
have  had  custody  of  the  castle  of  Colchester,  for  when  later  in  1384 
the  King  granted  it  to  Robert  de  Veer,  he  gave  instead  forty  pounds 
yearly  to  George  Felbrigg.3  In  7,  8  Richard  II  he  was  granted 
free  warren  for  certain  estates  in  Suffolk.4  In  1385  the  King 
granted  to  George  Felbrig,  whom  the  King  on  his  entry  into 
Scotland  had  advanced  to  the  rank  of  Knight,  forty  pounds  yearly 
to  enable  him  to  support  his  estate  more  honorably.8  He  had  with 
him  when  he  was  in  the  King's  expedition  to  Scotland  eight  es- 
quires and  bowmen.6 

In  11  Richard  II  George  de  Felbrugg  was  sent  to  the  Duke  of 
Gueldres  at  Middleburgh  to  receive  his  homage  on  the  part  of  the 
King ;  for  his  expenses  on  the  journey  he  was  paid  thirty  pounds.7 
In  1389-92  he  was  mentioned  frequently  in  the  Patent  Rolls  as 
Justice  of  the  Peace  in  Suffolk.8  In  14  Richard  II  he  was  paid 
forty  pounds  for  a  journey  to  the  King  of  the  Romans,  and  in  15 
Richard  II  a  hundred  pounds  for  the  same  journey.9  In  1399 
nine  grants  made  by  Richard  II  to  him,  were  confirmed  by  Henry 
IV.10  In  1401  a  George  Felbrig  married  Anne,  late  the  wife  of 
Robert  Charles,  Knight.11 

Blomefield  gives  the  following  additional  information  about 
Felbrig.  In  7  Richard  II  he  and  Margery  his  wife  held  the  man- 
ors of  Wortham  and  Ingham  in  Suffolk.  About  the  same  time 
Roger  Mortimer,  Earl  of  March,  granted  to  him  and  Roger  Mares- 
chall,  esquire,  the  manor  and  park  of  Standon  in  Hertfordshire,  at 
farm.  He  was  one  of  the  King's  protectors  in  the  latter 's  tenth 
year,  and  in  15  Richard  II,  he  was  one  of  the  Lieutenants  in  the 
court  of  chivalry  to  try  the  case  of  Lords  Morley  and  Lovell.  His 
will  was  dated  3  February  1400.12 

1  Issues,  P.  304,  mem.  19,  P.  305,  mem.  13.  *  Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  p.  367.  *  idem,  pp.  440, 
442.  *Cal.  Rot.  Chart.,  p.  190.  •  Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  p.  18.  "Issues,  P.  312,  mem.  17.  T  idem, 
P.  316,  mem.  2.  8  Cal.  Pat.  Roll  index.  •Issues,  P.  323,  mem.  5,  P.  324,  mem.  5.  10  Cal. 
Pat.  Roll,  p.  77.  "idem,  p.  539.  «  Blomefleld,  VIII,  pp.  107  ff. 


THE  JUSTICES  OF  THE  PEACE 

The  office  of  Justice  of  the  Peace  developed  in  England  in  the 
fourteenth  century.-  The  main  outlines  of  its  growth  can  be  in- 
dicated by  the  statement  of  a  few  significant  facts.  In  1327  it 
was  enacted  that  ''good  and  lawful  men"  be  assigned  to  keep  the 
peace.  In  1330  they  were  given  power  to  return  indictments.  In 
1360  one  lord  and  with  him  three  or  four  of  the  most  worthy  of  the 
county,  with  some  learned  in  the  law,  were  given  power  to  arrest 
malefactors,  to  receive  indictments  against  them,  and  to  hear  and 
determine  at  the  King's  suit  all  manner  of  felonies  and  trespasses 
done  in  the  county.  In  1362  it  was  directed  by  statute  that  the 
justices  should  hold  sessions  four  times  a  year,  and,  in  1388,  that 
they  should  be  paid  four  shillings  a  day  during  the  sessions.1  In  13 
Eichard  II  it  was  enacted  that  the  justices  should  be  "the  most 
efficient  Knights,  esquires  and  gentlemen  of  the  law"  of  the 
county.2 

The  justices  of  a  given  county  were  derived  from  three  classes.3 

(a)  those  appointed  by  being  named  in  the  schedule.     (The 
Lord  Chancellor  made  the  appointment,  usually  relying  upon 
the  Lord  Lieutenant,  or  the  custos  rotulorum,  of  the  county.) 

(b)  virtute  officii — i.  e.  the  Lord  Chancellor,  Lord  President  of 
the  Privy  Council,  Lord  Privy  Seal,  Justices  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  etc. 

(c)  holders  of  minor  judicial  offices,  county  judges,  etc. 

Of  those  named  in  the  list  of  Justices  of  the  Peace  for  Kent  in 
1386  at  least  four  fall  under  class  (b)  ;  Robert  Tresilian,  Robert 
Bealknap,  David  Hannemere,  and  Walter  Clopton  were  at  that  time 
Justices  in  the  King's  courts  and  their  names  occur  (evidently  ex 
officio)  in  the  lists  of  justices  for  many  of  the  counties  of  England. 
Since  they  very  likely  never  sat  with  the  Justices  of  the  Peace  in 
Kent,  they  may,  for  our  purposes,  be  disregarded. 

We  cannot  be  sure  that  Chaucer  ever  actually  sat  on  this  com- 
mission or  that  he  knew  personally  any  one  of  his  fellow  justices. 
Consequently  there  is  no  intrinsic  interest  in  a  study  of  their  in- 

1  Summarized  from  Maitland's  Constitutional  History  and  G.  E.  Howard.  Neb.  U. 
Studies,  pp.  44,  53.  2  Though  enacted  after  Chaucer's  time  as  justice,  this  indicates  very 
nearly  a  contemporary  attitude  toward  the  office.  s  Encyclopedia  of  Laws  of  England, 
vol.  7,  p.  587. 


38  CHAUCER'S  OFFICIAL  LIFE 

dividual  careers  and  personalities.  But  a  few  notes  about  them  will 
give  us  some  impression  of  the  type  of  men  with  whom  Chaucer 
was  associating  and  the  importance  of  his  social  position. 

In  the  fourteenth  century  the  name  of  the  Constable  of  Dover 
and  "Warden  of  the  Cinque  Ports  always  heads  the  list  of  justices 
in  Kent.  The  holder  of  that  office  in  1387  was  SIMON  DE  BURLEY, 
one  of  the  most  influential  men  in  Richard  IPs  court.  This  man 
was  not  of  noble  birth.  Barnes  (quoted  by  Kervyn  de  Letten- 
hoeve)1  says  that  Walter  Burley  was  so  renowned  for  his  learning 
at  Oxford  that  he  became  the  almoner  of  the  queen  (Philippa  (  ?)  ) 
and  the  tutor  of  the  prince  of  Wales.  One  of  his  relatives,  Simon 
de  Burley,  was  included  among  the  group  of  young  people  brought 
up  with  the  prince,  and  soon  he  became  the  latter 's  intimate  friend, 
and  afterwards  one  of  the  tutors  of  his  son,  Richard  II.  He  en- 
joyed the  greatest  favour  under  Richard  II,  and  belonged  to  the 
group  of  the  King's  friends,  Robert  de  Vere,  Michael  de  la  Pole 
and  Nicholas  Brembre.  He  had  been  connected  always  with  the 
family  of  Richard  II  (a  fact  illustrated  by  his  being  named  by 
Joan,  mother  of  Richard  II,  one  of  the  executors  of  her  will, 
1385). 2  In  1377  Richard  II  confirmed  to  him— "the  King's 
father's  Knight" —  a  grant  of  a  hundred  pounds  yearly  made  by 
the  King's  father  and  the  custody  of  Kerwerdyn  castle.3  In  the 
same  year  he  granted  de  Burley  the  office  of  constable  of  Windsor 
Castle  for  life,  the  abbot  of  Fecampe's  manor  of  Sloghtre,4  rent 
free,  during  the  war,  and  the  office  of  master  of  the  falcons. r>  In 
1378  he  confirmed  to  de  Burley  the  custody  of  the  manor  of 
Chiltenham  (Gloucester)  and  the  fee  simple  of  the  castle  and  lord- 
ship of  Lanstephan.6  In  1382  Richard  granted  him  the  office  of 
under-chamberlain  of  the  King's  household  for  life,  and  appointed 
him  surveyor  of  the  lands  in  South  Wales  in  the  King's  hands  dur- 
ing the  minority  of  the  heir  of  Edmond  Mortimer.7  In  1384  the 
King  granted  him  for  life  the  constableship  of  Dover  Castle  and 
the  wardenship  of  the  Cinque  Ports,  and  three  hundred  pounds 
yearly  therefor  (and  for  the  maintenance  of  himself,  chaplains, 
etc.)  with  provision  that  he  exercise  the  office  himself.8  In  1388  he 
was  attainted  of  treason  with  the  other  favourites  of  the  King  and 
executed.  It  is  reported  that  people  in  Kent  rose  in  rebellion  to 

'Froissart  XX,  487.  »  Test.  Vet.,  p.  15.  *  Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  p.  223.  «  idem,  pp.  78,  21, 
223.  'idem,  p.  78.  •  idem,  p.  119,  256.  7  idem,  p.  164.  8  idem,  p.  367. 


THE  JUSTICES  OF  THE  PEACE  39 

demonstrate  their  loyalty  to  him.  At  his  death  Michael  de  la  Pole, 
William  Wingfield  and  he  possessed  together  extensive  lands,  and 
he  himself  had  some  seven  manors  in  Kent.1 

The  JOHN  DE  COBEHAM  whose  name  follows  that  of  de  Burley  in 
the  list,  was  one  of  the  most  eminent  barons  of  his  day.  I  shall 
merely  outline  a  few  of  the  most  important  features  in  his  career. 
He  came  of  one  of  the  oldest  families  in  Kent.2  His  father  had 
been  at  various  times  admiral  of  the  King's  fleet  in  the  west,  jus- 
tice in  Kent,  and  constable  of  Rochester.  His  mother  was  Joan, 
daughter  of  John,  lord  Beauchamp  of  Stoke.  In  40,  41  Edward 
III  John  de  Cobeham  served  in  the  wars  in  France ;  in  41  Edward 
III  he  was  ambassador  to  Rome.  In  1  Richard  II  he  was  a  mem- 
ber of  the  King's  council,  served  later  in  France  with  three  Knights, 
105  esquires  and  110  men  at  arms,  and  was  made  a  banneret.  In 
10  Richard  II  he  was  one  of  the  thirteen  lord  governours  of  the 
realm,  appointed  to  oversee  the  government  of  the  King.  From 
1377  on  he  was  on  many  commissions  to  treat  for  peace  with 
foreign  powers.  In  1387  he  was  with  the  five  lords  appellant  at 
Waltham  Cross  (evidently  then  he  was  of  the  party  of  Gloucester 
and  Arundel).  He  was  Member  of  Parliament  from  Kent  in  1390, 
1394  and  1398.  In  1392  he  was  lieutenant  to  the  constable  of 
England,  and  in  the  same  year  he  was  given  a  cup  in  the  Earl  of 
Arundel 's  will.3  With  the  downfall  of  Gloucester  he  fell  out  of 
favour.  He  died  in  1409,  leaving  extensive  possessions  (forty- 
three  items  in  all)  in  London,  Wiltshire,  Kent  and  Surrey.  He 
married  Margaret,  daughter  of  Hugh  Courtenay,  Earl  of  Devon- 
shire.4 

JOHN  CLINTON  came  of  a  prominent  Kentish  family.  He  was 
son  of  John  de  Clinton  of  Maxtoke  and  Ida  d'Odingsel.5  He  was 
in  the  French  and  Scottish  campaigns,  was  appointed  on  commis- 
sions and  was  at  one  time  lieutenant  of  John  Devereux,  warden  of 
the  Cinque  Ports.  He  died  .in  1396,  leaving  extensive  lands  in 
Kent  (twenty-six  items  in  all).6  He  married  Margery  Corbet,  of 
a  good  Kentish  family. 

JOHN  DEVEREUX  was  son  of  William  Devereux.  Edward  III 
attached  him  to  the  person  of  his  grandson  (Richard  II?)  and  gave 

iCal.  Inq.  P.  M.  Ill,  111,  119.  2  Ireland's  Kent  V,  240  ff.  3  Test.  Vet.,  p.  133. 
4  On  Cobeham  cf.  Nicolas  Hist.  Peerage,  and  Kent.  Arch.  Soc.  II,  p.  71.  5  Froissart  XXI, 
pp.  17  ff.  6  Cal.  Inq.  P.  M.  Ill,  228. 


•Jo  CHAUCER'S  OFFICIAL  LIFE 

him  two  hundred  marks  as  a  pension.1  He  was  in  Spain  with  the 
Black  Prince.  In  1377  he  was  appointed  one  of  the  King's  coun- 
cil,2 in  1378  constable  of  Leeds  Castle  for  life,  and  in  1380  Captain 
of  the  city  of  Calais.'  He  was  on  many  commissions  to  treat  of 
peace  with  France  and  Flanders  *  and  from  1384  on  he  was  fre- 
quently summoned  to  Parliament.  In  1386  he  was  one  of  the 
council  of  eleven  appointed  to  govern  England.  From  1386  to  1390 
(and  perhaps  longer)  he  was  steward  of  the  King's  household.5 
In  1387  he  was  with  the  lords  appellant  at  Waltham  Cross.6  In 
1387  he  succeeded  Simon  de  Burley  as  Constable  of  Dover  and 
Warden  of  the  Cinque  Ports.7  He  died  in  1394,  a  Knight  of  the 
Garter8  and  the  possessor,  in  right  of  his  wife,  of  the  manor  of 
Penshurst,  Kent.  His  only  other  property  seems  to  have  been  the 
manor  of  Donyngton  in  Buckinghamshire.9 

THOMAS  CULPEPER  came  from  a  great  Kentish  family  which  at 
one  time  could  boast  of  having  twelve  members  bearing  the  order  of 
Knighthood.10  A  Thomas  Culpeper  was  Member  of  Parliament  for 
Kent  in  1361  and  in  other  later  years. 

THOMAS  FOGG  was  Member  of  Parliament  for  Kent  in  1378, 1380, 
1383,  1384,  1388V.  He  held  lands  by  Knight's  service  of  the  Lord  of 
Ponynges,  and  came,  through  right  of  his  wife,  into  part  of  the 
property  of  Warresins  de  Valoynes.  In  1377  he  was  constable  of 
the  castle  of  Calais.11  He  was  prominent  in  the  wars  of  the  time, 
especially  in  naval  action.  In  1386  he  went  to  Spain  with  John  of 
Gaunt12  In  1405  he  died.13 

WILLIAM  RIKHILL  was  a  justice  of  the  King's  bench.  He  may 
have  been  in  the  list  for  that  reason,  or  perhaps  because  he  was  an 
inhabitant  of  Kent.  At  any  rate  he  came  of  a  landed  family  in 
Kent.14  He  died  in  Henry  IV's  reign. 

JOHN  FREMINGHAM,  son  of  Sir  Ralph  Fremingham  of  Lose,  was 
derived  from  a  prominent  Kentish  family.15  He  himself  is  called 
"chivaler;"  was  sheriff  of  Kent  in  1378  and  1393,  and  a  Member 
of  Parliament  in  1377,  1381  and  1399.  He  was  executor  of  the 
will  of  William  Courtenay,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury.  He  died 

1  Froissart  XXI,  p.  94.  Statham  Hist,  of  Dover,  p.  380.  *  Rymer  old  ed.  VII,  161. 
*  idem,  p.  259.  *  idem,  308,  338,  248.  «  Rymer  old  ed.  VII,  495,  675.  •  Rot.  Par!.  Ill, 
229.  7  Ireland's  Kent  I,  710.  •  Beltz,  p.  323.  •  Cal.  Inq.  P.  M.  Ill,  174.  "Kent.  Arch. 
XXI,  212.  "Rymer  IV,  2.  "  Rymer  old  ed.  VII,  499.  "Kent.  Arch.  XVIII,  p.  360. 
"Ireland's  Kent,  IV,  416.  "idem,  III,  111.  Kent  Arch.  XXI,  214,  XXIII,  57. 


THE  JUSTICES  OF  THE  PEACE  41 

12  Henry  IV,  possessing  the  manor  and  advowson  of  the  church 
of  Otham,  and  Read  Court. 

JAMES  DE  PEKHAM  was  of  another  old  Kentish  family  which  can 
be  traced  as  far  back  as  Richard  I.1  His  great  grandfather  posses- 
sed the  manor  of  Pekham  in  Hadlow  (temp.  Edward  I)  and  the 
estates  had  been  increased  since  that  time.  James  Pekham  was 
sheriff  of  Kent  in  1377  and  1380  and  a  member  of  Parliament  in 
1372,  1377,  1383,  1388. 

WILLIAM  TOPCLYF  was  apparently  the  only  man  in  the  list  (ex- 
cept Chaucer)  who  did  not  come  from  a  landed  Kentish  family. 
He  was,  however,  in  1382  and  doubtless  later,  land  steward  to  the 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury.  He  held  a  manor  in  Kent,  whether  as 
steward  of  the  Archbishop  or  of  his  own  right,  I  have  not  been  able 
to  find  out.2 

THOMAS  BROKHILL,  of  Saltwood,  chivaler,  derived  from  a  good 
Kentish  family,  was  Sheriff  in  1382,  1383,  1385,  1395,  1397,  1399, 
and  1402.  He  died  in  1437-38,  leaving  no  male  heirs.3 

WILLIAM  BRENCHESLEY  was  lord  of  the  manor  of  Benenden, 
near  Dartford,  and  a  justice  of  the  Common  Pleas  (in  Henry  IV 's 
time).4 

1  Ireland's  Kent  III,  529.     Kent  Arch.  Soc.  XXI,  214,  XXVIII,  210.     2  Kent  Arch. 

IV,  125.     3  Ireland's  Kent  II,  218.     Kent  Arch.  XXI,  215,  XVIII,  422,  3.     *  Kent  Arch. 

V,  27. 


THE  CUSTOMS.1 

The  duties  of  the  collectors  of  customs  were  to  ensure  payment 
on  all  wools  and  leather  shipped  from  their  port,  to  have  the  wool 
or  leather  weighed  at  the  wool-beam  and  each  bale  tested  and  sealed 
with  the  Government  stamp  or  "coket"  seal.  The  collectors,  of 
whom  there  were  two  in  every  important  port,  were  clerical  officers 
rather  than  coast  guards — their  most  arduous  duty  the  preparing 
and  balancing  of  the  accounts  which  had  to  be  written  by  their  own 
hands.  Their  salary  was  twenty  pounds  a  year  each.  The  control- 
ler, who  was  intended  as  a  check  on  the  collectors,  prepared  and  pre- 
sented an  independent  account  to  the  Exchequer.  He  seems  to  have 
had  no  fixed  salary,  but  the  collectors  were  empowered  to  pay  the 
controller's  salary  out  of  the  takings.2  The  sums  thus  paid,  were 
however,  mostly  nominal,  (in  Chaucer's  case  ten  pounds  a  year) 
and  it  is  evident  that  both  collectors  and  controllers  were  allowed 
to  levy  fees. 

The  collectors  of  the  Port  of  London  during  Chaucer's  service 
as  controller  were: 

1374  John  de  Bernes  and  Nicholas  Brembre. 

1375  Brembre  and  William  de  Walworth. 

1376  John  Warde  and  Robert  Girdelere. 

1377  Warde  and  Richard  Northbury. 
1378-1384  Brembre  and  John  Philipot. 
1384-1386  Brembre  and  John  Organ. 

These  were  in  every  case  prominent  citizens  and  merchants  of 
London,  and  after  1377,  they  were  members  of  a  clique  especially 
friendly  to  the  King,  and  inimical  to  John  of  Gaunt.  To  gain  the 
right  conception  of  their  relations,  one  must  learn  something  about 
London  politics.  I  shall  follow  Trevelyan's  account 3  of  the  fac- 
tional struggles  in  the  city,  which  from  the  documents  which  he  has 
published  and  from  such  evidence  as  that  afforded  by  the  Rolls  of 
Parliament,  is  unquestionably  the  correct  one.  The  aldermen  of 
London  were  the  representatives  of  the  companies  (the  associations 
of  merchants  of  different  sorts),  each  company  choosing  a  given 

1  Summarized  from  Hubert  Hall :  History  of  the  Customs  Revenue.  a  Alton  &  Hol- 
land: the  King's  Customs.  *  Age  of  Wyclif,  pp.  278  S. 


THE  CUSTOMS  43 

number  according  to  its  influence  and  wealth.  Further  in  1376 
a  method  of  electing  the  mayor  and  the  sheriffs,  was  introduced, 
which  consisted  in  a  vote  by  companies.  Now  the  most  powerful 
of  these  companies  was  the  Grocers'  which  at  this  time  had  sixteen 
aldermen — many  more  than  its  nearest  competitor.  Allied  with 
this  company  were  the  other  companies  of  merchants  dealing  in 
provisions,  especially  the  Fishmongers.  The  chief  opponents  of 
this  group  were  the  companies  of  clothing  merchants,  the  mercers, 
drapers,  cordwainers,  etc.  The  Grocers'  Company  and  its  allies 
stood  for  the  established  order  of  things  because  they  were  faring 
well  under  it.  The  Mercers  and  Drapers  were  rebellious  and 
ready  to  take  any  opportunity  to  eject  their  rivals  from  power. 

At  this  time  (1376)  John  of  Gaunt 's  clique  in  the  court,  es- 
pecially Lord  Latimer  and  Richard  Lyons,  had  aroused  the  enmity 
of  the  Londoners  because  of  their  irregular  and  ''grafting"  finan- 
cial operations.1  The  Londoners  paraded  the  streets  in  demon- 
stration against  John  of  Gaunt.  The  latter  demanded  revenge  and 
gained  the  deposition  of  the  mayor,  Adam  Staple.  The  Londoners 
rallied  and  elected  Nicholas  Brembre  mayor.2  Brembre  and  his 
allies  defended  the  Londoners  vigorously  before  Parliament. 
Naturally  then  John  of  Gaunt  felt  a  still  greater  hatred  of  Brembre 
and  his  party  and  was  willing  to  act  as  patron  to  their  opponents. 
The  latter  in  turn,  eager  to  gain  any  aid  they  could  in  their 
struggles,  willingly  accepted  John  of  Gaunt  as  a  friend.  This,  as 
clearly  as  I  can  make  out,  is  the  train  of  circumstances  which 
brought  about  an  unquestioned  condition:  John  of  Gaunt 's  hatred 
of  London  and  especially  of  Brembre  and  his  party,  and  his  patron- 
age of  John  of  Northampton,  the  chief  representative  of  the 
clothiers.  Brembre 's  chief  political  allies  were  Sir  William 
Walworth,  Sir  John  Philipot  and  Nicholas  Exton.  These  men  were 
very  definitely  patronised  by  Richard  II  in  opposition  to  John 
Northampton,  Richard  Northbury  and  John  More. 

During  Chaucer's  tenure  of  the  office  of  controller  only  one  cer- 
tain adherent  of  the  Northampton  faction  acted  as  collector — 
Richard  Northbury,  who  was  dropped  from  the  office  almost  as 
soon  as  Richard  II  came  to  the  throne.  The  other  men  with  whom 
Chaucer  had  to  deal  were  the  very  leaders  of  the  royal  faction. 
Further  they  were  the  most  eminent  merchants  of  their  time.  In  the 

1  Trevelyan,  p.  10.     2  idem,  p.  49.     »  See  Robert  Girdelere,  p.  46. 


44  CHAUCER'S  OFFICIAL  LIFE 

first  half  of  the  fourteenth  century  the  king  had  been  forced  to  rely 
upon  foreign,  especially  Italian,  merchants  for  financial  aids,  loans, 
etc.,  since  no  group  of  Englishmen  could  control  sufficient  money 
to  aid  him  in  an  emergency.1  But  in  the  second  half  he  had  at 
his  hand  a  group  of  London  merchants,  powerful  enough  to  meet 
the  sudden  financial  needs  of  government.  Moreover  they  were 
picturesque  figures — Sir  William  Walworth  striking  down  Wat 
Tyler  in  the  presence  of  the  peasant-host,  Sir  John  Philipot  fitting 
out  a  fleet  at  his  own  expense,  scouring  the  channel  and  finally 
bringing  the  dreaded  pirate  Mercer  in  triumph  to  London. 

JOHN  DE  BERNES,  Collector  in  1374,  was,  in  1360,  Sheriff,  in 
1363  and  1370  Alderman,  of  London,  and  in  45,  46,  Edward  III, 
Mayor.2  In  1370  he  lent  the  King  £100,  in  1363  he  was  apparently 
employed  in  buying  for  the  king's  household.3  He  was  dead  by 
1378,  and  I  have  not  found  out  anything  more  about  him. 

NICHOLAS  BREMBRE,  Collector  1374,  1375,  1378-1386.  See  ac- 
count in  D.  N.  B.  Brembre  was  mayor  in  1377,  1383-4-5.  He  was 
the  political  leader  of  the  group  of  King  Richard's  friends  in 
London.  Of  his  public  career  I  shall  not  treat  since  that  is  suf- 
ficiently covered  elsewhere.  To  illustrate  his  financial  dealings, 
the  following  abstracts  of  documents  are  important.  In  September 
1377,  the  King  borrowed  £10,000  of  Brembre,  Wallworth,  Philipot 
and  John  Haddele  (grocer,  later  Mayor  of  London),  and  certain 
other  merchants,  for  whom  these  were  attorneys,  pledging  the  crown 
jewels.4  In  May  1378  this  sum  was  repaid.  In  1378,  Hugh  de 
Calvylegh,  captain  of  Calais,  Nicholas  Brembre  and  John  Philipot, 
in  the  service  of  the  war,  agreed  to  pay  to  William  von  de  Voorde 
of  Bruges,  the  sum  of  £2,166,  13s.  4d.  as  directed  by  the  council, 
delivered  their  bond  to  the  King's  clerk,  and  a  tally  of  that 
amount  was  placed  in  the  hands  of  William  de  Wallworth.8  In 
1382  the  King  granted  Brembre  in  discharge  of  2,000m.  lent  by  him 
to  the  King  to  discharge  a  debt  to  Sir  Bretrucat  de  Lebret,  half  a 
mark  from  the  subsidy  of  each  sack  of  wool  and  wool-fells  passing 
out  of  the  ports  of  London  and  Boston,  with  custody  of  one  part 
of  the  coket  seal  of  the  latter  port,  until  the  loan  should  be  fully 
paid.6  In  1380  Brembre,  Philipot  and  Walworth  were  appointed 

1  W.  D.  Chester,  Chronicles  of  the  Customs  Department,  pp.  13  ff.  »  Riley  Memorials, 
pp.  305,  313,  345.  Gregory's  Chronicle  (Camden  Soc.)  p.  88.  'Devon's  Issues,  p. 
170.  Rymer  III,  696.  «  Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  p.  25.  •  Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  p.  280.  •  idem,  p.  164. 


THE  CUSTOMS  45 

on  a  commission  to  investigate  the  finances  of  the  realm — together 
with  the  Archbishop  of  York,  Earl  of  Arundel,  etc.  This  group  of 
men  is,  indeed,  constantly  mentioned  together;  throughout  such 
documents  as  the  Patent  Rolls,  where  matters  of  national  finance 
are  under  consideration,  Brembre,  Philipot  and  Walworth,  or  per- 
haps two  of  them,  are  sure  to  be  mentioned.1 

In  the  latter  part  of  his  career  complaints  were  sent  to  Parlia- 
ment against  him  and  Exton,  by  the  Mercers,  Cordwainers,  Foun- 
ders, Sadlers,  Painters,  Armourers,  Pinners,  Embroiderers,  Spur- 
riors  and  Blacksmiths — obviously  the  trades  belonging  to  the  then 
defunct  party  of  John  Northampton.2 

He  was  accused  in  1388  together  with  de  la  Pole,  Robert 
Tresilian  and  other  friends  of  the  King  of  the  following:  having 
prevented  access  by  others  to  the  King,  misled  the  King,  caused  the 
King  to  give  manors,  lands,  and  other  offices  to  persons  of  their 
party  and  to  persons  from  whom  they  received  gifts  or  whom  they 
wished  to  use  (such  as  Usk),  having  caused  the  King  to  grant  them 
money,  etc.3  As  is  well  known  Brembre  was  condemned  and  exe- 
cuted. 

At  his  death  Brembre  left  extensive  estates  (entered  in  the 
Inquisitions)  in  London  and  Kent. 

WILLIAM  DE  WALWORTH  was  born  about  1320.  He  was  appren- 
ticed to  John  Lovekin,  Stockfishmonger,  Mayor  of  London,  1348, 
1358,  1365,  1366. *  He  was  executor  of  Lovekin 's  will  and  seems  to 
have  retained  a  special  feeling  of  loyalty  for  him,  because  in  1381 
he  founded  a  college  of  a  master  and  nine  chaplains  to  celebrate 
divine  service  for  the  good  estate  of  the  King,  himself,  and  Mar- 
garet his  wife,  for  their  souls  after  death  and  for  that  of  John 
Lovekin,  formerly  his  master.5  He  was  elected  Mayor  of  London 
in  1374  and  again  in  1380.  In  1370  he  and  Simon  de  Morden  lent 
the  king  £  300.  On  the  day  of  Edward  Ill's  death  he  and  John 
Philipot  went  to  the  young  King,  implored  his  favour  for  the  city  of 
London,  and  asked  him  to  put  a  stop  to  John  of  Gaunt 's  persecutions. 
When  the  Commons  voted  a  subsidy  to  the  King  for  carrying  on  the 
war,  they  expressed  distrust  of  the  management  of  it,  and  demanded 

1  It  is  noticeable  that  from  1377  on  John  of  Northampton  is  never  mentioned  in  the 
Patent  Rolls  in  connection  with  financial  operations,  loans  to  the  King,  etc.  2  Rot.  Parl. 
Ill,  141  ff.  225.  *Rot.  Parl.  Ill,  230.  *  Woodcock,  Lives  of  Lord  Mayors,  Surrey  Arch. 
Coll.  VIII,  277  ff.  e  Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  p.  99. 


46  CHAUCER  '&  OFFICIAL  LIFE 

that  the  funds  be  intrusted  to  Walworth  and  Philipot,  treasurers  for 
the  war.  In  1381  Walworth  accompanied  the  boy  King  at  his  meet- 
ing with  the  Peasant  leaders,  and  he,  Brembre  and  Philipot  were 
knighted  by  the  King  for  their  bravery  on  this  occasion.  He 
died  in  1381.  Walworth  was  appointed  on  many  commissions  of 
various  sorts  and  dealt  extensively  in  land. 

JOHN  WARDE  did  not  bulk  so  large  in  London  affairs  as  did 
the  others  and  consequently  I  have  been  able  to  learn  but  little  about 
him.  He  belonged  to  the  Grocers'  Company  and.  consequently 
without  doubt  to  Brembre 's  faction.1  He  had  been  sheriff  in  1366 
and  was  elected  Mayor  of  London  in  1375.2 

ROBERT  GIRDELERE  is  even  more  difficult  to  trace  than  Warde. 
He  was  sheriff  of  London  1368-9. 3  I  have  found  reference  to  a 
transaction  in  which  Robert  Girdler  agreed  to  buy  certain  cables 
and  cords.4  Consequently  he  may  not  have  been  a  dealer  in  pro- 
visions and  was  perhaps  a  member  of  John  Northampton's  party. 
The  last  reference  that  I  have  found  to  him  is  the  date  of  his  col- 
lectorship,  1376. 

RICHARD  NORTHBURY  was  a  leader  of  John  Northampton's 
party.  He  was  a  member  of  the  Mercer's  Company.5  In  1384  he 
was  found  guilty  with  John  of  Northampton  of  sedition,  and  im- 
prisoned. Certain  tenements  which  he  held  in  London  were  for- 
feited to  the  King.6  In  1385  the  King  granted  him  10m.  a  year  for 
clothing  and  26m.  a  year  for  victuals,  while  he  was  a  prisoner  in 
Corfe  Castle.7  In  1391  the  Commons  petitioned  the  King  to  annul 
the  decision  against  him  and  to  restore  him  his  lands,  at  the  same 
time  making  similar  petitions  for  John  Northampton  and  John 
More.  All  three  were  granted.8 

JOHN  PHILIPOT  is  treated  in  D.  N.  B.  He  was  apparently  a 
shipowner,  and  certainly  a  member  of  the  Grocers'  Company.  In 
1363  he  was  appointed  on  a  commission  to  seize  forfeited  goods  for 
the  King.  In  1364  he  was  granted  license  to  buy  victuals  and  take 
them  to  Calais.  In  1378  he  was  elected  Mayor.  In  1379  Sir  Roger 
Beauchamp,  lord  chamberlain  to  the  King's  household,  bequeathed 
him  "my  great  cup  gilt,  which  the  King  of  Navarre  gave  me," 
and  made  him  one  of  the  executors  of  his  will.  In  the  same  year  he 

1  Orridge,  Citizens  of  London.  *  Coll.  of  London  Cit.  (Camden  Soc.)  pp.  88,  89. 
8  Coll.  of  London  Cit.  (Camden  Soc.)  p.  88.  *  Cal.  of  Letters,  City  of  London,  p.  144. 
•Cal.  Rot.  Pat.  Turr.  Lon.,  p.  223.  •  Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  p.  481.  T  idem,  p.  548.  » Rot. 
Parl.,  p.  292. 


THE  CUSTOMS  47 

contributed  largely  to  fitting  out  a  fleet  against  the  French,  hir- 
ing a  number  of  ships  at  his  own  expense  and  redeeming  a  thous- 
and sets  of  armour  and  arms  which  had  been  pawned.  In  1383 
he  was  appointed  on  a  commission  to  treat  of  peace  with  the  Duke 
of  Flanders.  He  died  in  1384. 

JOHN  ORGAN  was  alderman  of  London  and  sheriff  in  1385.1 
I  have  not  been  able  to  discover  what  company  he  belonged  to.  In 
1378  he  was  appointed  one  of  the  collectors  of  the  tax  of  two-fif- 
teenths.2 In  1383  he  was  appointed  one  of  the  collectors  of  the 
subsidy  of  2s.  from  each  tun  of  wine  and  6d.  in  the  pound  from 
the  merchandise  in  the  port  of  London.3  From  these  appointments 
it  seems  likely  that  he  was  friendly  to  the  Brembre  faction — 
note  also  that  he  succeeded  Philipot  at  the  latter 's  death. 

1  Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  p.  90.     2  Rymer  IV,  34.     3  Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  p.   128. 


OTHER  ASSOCIATES  OF  CHAUCER 

JOHN  DE  BURLEY 

John  de  Burley,  with  whom  Chaucer  in  1376  went  on  a  diplo- 
matic mission,  was  a  brother  of  Simon  de  Burley.1  He  was  cer- 
tainly attached  personally  to  the  Black  Prince,  for  in  1378  Richard 
II  confirmed  to  him  a  grant  made  by  himself  when  prince  (51 
Ed.  Ill)  confirming  a  grant  of  his  father  the  prince  of  Wales  (41 
Ed.  Ill)  of  £40  yearly  for  de  Burley 's  services,  especially  at  the 
battle  of  Nazare  where  he  was  the  prince's  bodyguard.2  In  1373 
he  was  appointed  Captain  of  Calais  and  commissioned  to  super- 
vise the  fortifications  of  Oderwyk  and  other  places  besides  Calais.3 
In  1375  he  was  on  a  commission  to  treat  for  peace  with  France.4 
In  1377  he  was  a  witness  of  Edward  Ill's  will,5  and  stepped  out 
of  the  position  of  Captain  of  Calais.6  In  1377  he  was  granted  the 
constableship  of  Nottingham  Castle  for  life.7  (He  gave  it  up  in 
1381  ).8  In  1378  Richard  II  confirmed  to  him  a  grant  (47,50  Ed- 
ward III)  of  40m.  yearly  in  addition  to  the  £40  already  granted.9 
In  1378,  £40  yearly  were  granted  at  his  supplication,  to  his  son 
W.  de  Burley,  esquire,  ' '  retained  to  stay  with  the  King. " 10  In 
1377  John  de  Burley,  Knight  of  the  King's  Chamber,11  was  given 
the  custody  of  Sherwood  Forest.12  In  1378  he  had  the  King  change 
his  grants  of  £40  and  40m.  to  one  of  100m.  and  give  the  latter  to 
his  son,  John  de  Burley,  Kt.13  In  1378  he  was  on  a  commission  to 
treat  for  the  marriage  of  Richard  II  with  a  daughter  of  the  Duke 
of  Milan.14  Later  he  was  engaged  in  negotiations  for  Richard's  mar- 
riage with  Anne  of  Bohemia.  While  so  employed,  he  and  Michael 
de  la  Pole  and  Gerard  del  Isle  were  taken  prisoners  and  held  for 
ransom.  On  this  occasion  the  King  sent  money  for  the  ransom  of 
the  three.15  On  another  occasion  he  was  taken  prisoner  in  Germany 
after  having  been  sent  as  messenger  to  the  King  of  Bohemia,  and 
the  King  contributed  500m.  to  his  ransom.16  In  1381  he  gave  up  the 
custody  of  Sherwood  forest,  and  also  that  of  Nottingham  Castle.17 
In  that  year  and  the  following  he  and  Simon  de  Burley  are  men- 
tioned in  connection  with  transfers  of  land.18  In  1382  he  was  a 

»C.  R.  242  mem.  17.  *  Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  p.  197.  *  Rymer  III,  989,  992.  «  Rymer  III, 
1021.  "Test.  Vet.,  p.  11.  •  Rymer  IV,  2.  T  Cal.  Pat.(  Roll,  p.  34.  8  idem,  p.  60.  •  idem, 
p.  108.  10  idem,  p.  283.  "He  was  also  BO  mentioned  in  1370.  "Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  p.  33. 
« idem,  p.  281.  "  Rymer  old  ed.  VII,  213.  15  Devon's  Issues  III,  224-5.  "  Issue  Roll 
(Devon)  7  Rich.  II,  p.  225.  "Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  pp.  54,  60.  "idem,  p.  160. 


OTHER  ASSOCIATES  OF  CHAUCER  491 

Justice  of  the  Peace  in  Hereford.  In  1385  he  was  granted  for 
life  the  custody  of  the  alien  priory  of  "Wotton  Waweyn,  provided 
that  its  value  should  not  exceed  £45,  13s.  4d.  yearly,  the  rent 
which  he  was  wont  to  pay  for  it.1  I  find  no  later  mention  of  him, 
except  the  rather  doubtful  one  of  his  inheriting  land  from  Simon 
de  Burley  (in  1388). 

SIR  EDWARD  DE  BERKELEY 

Sir  Edward  de  Berkeley  was  a  Knight  of  the  chamber  to 
Richard  II.2  In  1376  he  was  appointed  on  a  commission  to  treat 
for  peace  with  France.3  In  1378,  Eichard  II  confirmed  a  grant 
made  by  himself  when  Prince  (50  Edward  III)  confirming  letters 
patent  of  his  father  (45  Edward  III) — of  fifty  pounds  yearly.4 
In  1378  he  is  mentioned  as  going  on  an  expedition  with  John  of 
Gaunt,5  and  is  again  appointed  on  a  commission  to  treat  for  peace 
with  Flanders.6  He  died  4  Richard  II,  leaving  a  manor  and  some 
lands  in  Suffolk.7  His  will,  which  is  extant,8  directs  that  his  body 
be  buried  in  the  church  of  St.  Mary  Carmelites  in  Calais;  and 
bequeath es  his  " dominion  and  monastery  at  Hikeling"  to  "Sir  John 
Clanbrow"  (probably  Sir  John  Clanvowe). 
SIR  THOMAS  DE  PERCY 

Sir  Thomas  de  Percy,  with  whom  Chaucer  was  sent  to  Fland- 
ers in  1377,  was  brother  of  Henry  de  Percy,  count  of  Northumber- 
land.9 He  was  with  the  Black  Prince  at  Bergerath,  44  Edward 
III.10  In  1378  a  grant  by  Edward  III  to  Thomas  de  Percy,  "whom 
the  King  has  retained  to  stay  with  him,"  of  100m.  yearly  was  con- 
firmed.11 In  that  year  and  at  many  times  subsequent  he  was  admiral 
of  the  north.12  In  1378  he  was  appointed  with  others  to  treat  with 
the  King  of  Scotland,13  in  1379  to  treat  with  the  Duke  of  Brittany.14 
From  1381  on  many  pardons  were  granted  at  his  request.  In  1381 
he  was  appointed  custodian  of  the  Castle  of  Brest.  In  1383  he 
was  on  a  commission  to  treat  with  Flanders  and  France.15  In 
1386  he  was  sub-chamberlain  in  the  King's  household  (literally 
"southchamberlain").16  By  1392  he  was  chamberlain  of  the  house- 
hold.17 In  1398  he  was  made  Earl  of  Worcester  18  and  appointed 
with  John  of  Gaunt  on  a  commission  for  redressing  violations  of 

1  Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  p.  45.  2  Ryiner  IV,  53.  » idem  III,  1067,  9.  *  Cal.  Pat.  Roll, 
p.  232.  B  Rymer  IV,  45.  K  Rymer  IV,  53.  7  Cal.  Inq.  P.  M.  Ill,  28.  8  Test  Vet.,  p. 
113.  »  Rymer  IV,  51.  10  Dugdale  I,  285.  "Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  p.  108.  12  idem,  p.  327. 
"Rymer  IV,  51.  14  Rymer  old.  ed.  VII,  223.  15  idem,  412.  "idem,  675.  "idem,  721. 
"Dugdale  I,  285. 


50  CHAUCER'S  OFFICIAL  LIFE 

the  truce.  In  1399  he  was  appointed  executor  of  the  Duchess  of 
Gloucester's  will.  He  was  beheaded  in  1403  because  of  his  con- 
nexion with  the  rising  of  Hotspur.  He  was  a  Knight  of  the  Garter. 

SIR  WILLIAM  DE  BEAUCHAMP 

That  Sir  William  de  Beauchamp  was  a  friend  to  Chaucer 
has  been  recognized  for  some  time.  In  May  1888  Mr.  W.  D.  Selby 
called  attention  to  this  connection  with  Chaucer  in  a  short  article 
in  The  Athenaeum.  In  this  article  Mr.  Selby  gave  a  few  facts  about 
him,  gathered  professedly  from  Dugdale,  but  omitted  all  mention  of 
the  curious  connection  Sir  William  de  Beauchamp  had  with  the 
property  of  the  Earl  of  Pembroke,  for  his  custodianship  of  which 
Chaucer  was  one  of  the  sureties. 

William  de  Beauchamp  was  a  younger  son  of  Thomas,  Earl  of 
Warwick.1  In  40  Edward  III  he  attended  John  of  Gaunt  in  his 
expedition  into  Spain.  In  44  Edward  III  he  served  as  a  Knight  in 
France,  in  the  retinue  of  John  of  Gaunt,  and  again  in  47  Edward 
III.  In  47  Edward  III  de  Beauchamp  signed  an  indenture  to  serve 
John  of  Gaunt  in  peace  and  in  war  during  his  life  in  consideration 
of  one  hundred  marks  yearly  and  wages  for  six  horses  and  four 
boys.2  He  had  been  connected  with  John  of  Gaunt 's  household 
even  earlier,  in  1340  and  1346. 3  In  1  Richard  II  he  served  witli 
Edmund  de  Langley,  Earl  of  Cambridge,  in  Spain  with  200  men- 
at-arms  and  200  archers,  and  in  the  King's  navy  at  sea  under  John 
of  Gaunt.  In  13  Richard  II  he  served  again  in  France. 

In  1377  he  was  granted  for  life  the  custody  of  Feckanham  for- 
est and  park  at  a  farm  of  £  37,  14s.  4V^d.  From  the  beginning  of 
his  reign,  Richard  II  granted  many  pardons  at  the  supplication  of 
William  de  Beauchamp.  In  1379  he  was  chamberlain  of  the  King's 
household;  in  1380  he  was  granted  an  annuity  of  200m.4  He  was 
regularly  on  commissions  of  the  peace  in  Warwick,  in  company 
with  his  brother,  the  Earl  of  Warwick.  In  1379  he  and  Lewis  de 
Clifford  aided  Robert  de  Ferrers  in  acquiring  the  manor  of  Wemme 
in  fee.r>  In  1383  he  was  appointed  on  a  commission  to  treat  with 
Flanders.  In  1384  he  was  appointed  Captain  of  Calais — a  position 
he  held  until  1392. 

To  return  now  to  one  matter  in  which  Chaucer  is  closely  con- 
nected with  William  de  Beauchamp.  In  1378  the  King  granted 

1  Of .  Dugdale's  Baronage  I,  238  ft,  Dugdale  Antiquities  of  Warwickshire  II.  1029  ff. 
*  Register  of  John,  duke  of  Lancaster,  vol.  13.  Misc.  Books — Rec.  Off.  *  Same  book. 
«Not  £200  as  Mr.  Selby  says.  See  Pat.  Roll  1380,  pp.  561,  600.  5  Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  p.  332. 


OTHER  ASSOCIATES  OF  CHAUCER  51 

William  de  Beauchamp  the  custody  of  the  Castle  and  estates  of 
Pembroke,  in  his  hands  by  reason  of  the  minority  of  the  Earl  of 
Pembroke.  The  father  of  the  last  Earl  of  Pembroke,  John  de 
Hastings,  had,  by  license  from  the  crown,  settled  all  his  possessions, 
in  the  event  of  failure  of  his  own  issue,  except  the  Castle  and  town 
of  Pembroke,  upon  his  cousin  William  de  Beauchamp  (his  mother's 
sister's  son).1  These  lands  were  in  the  hands  of  the  King  in  1378 
because  John  de  Hastings  had  died  and  his  son  was  still  a  minor; 
naturally  he  appointed  the  next  heir  custodian  of  them.  But 
William  de  Beauchamp 's  management  of  the  estates  was  cer- 
tainly not  satisfactory  and,  if  the  suretyship  of  Chaucer  was  any- 
thing but  a  form,  the  poet  stood  a  good  chance  of  losing  by  it.  The 
first  notice  we  find  of  Beauchamp 's  unsatisfactory  management  is 
in  1386,  when  a  commission  was  appointed  to  enquire  touching  the 
waste  in  the  possessions  of  John  de  Hastyngs  by  William  de  Beau- 
champ,  to  whom  the  King  had  committed  the  custody  of  the  land.2 
In  the  same  year  we  find  record  of  an  indenture  made  between 
Margaret  Mareschall,  countess  of  Norfolk,  guardian  of  John  de 
Hastyngs,  and  the  said  John,  on  the  one  side,  and  William  de 
Beauchamp  on  the  other,  whereby  the  latter  agreed  to  surrender  his 
custody  of  the  estates,  and  the  former  in  return  to  free  him  of 
liability  for  the  "waste."  3  In  1389  the  King  appointed  a  commis- 
sion to  enquire  touching  the  waste  in  the  lands  of  the  alien  priory 
of  Kirkeby  Monachorum,  county  Warwick,  in  the  time  of  William 
de  Beauchamp,  Knight,  farmer  thereof.4 

In  1390  we  find  a  "Revocation  for  reasons  declared  before  the 
King  and  council  in  the  present  parliament,  with  the  assent  of 
the  nobles,  magnates,  etc.,  of  recent  letters  granting  during  pleas- 
ure to  William  de  Beauchamp  the  custody  of  the  lands,  tenements, 
etc.  of  John  de  Hastyngs. " 5  In  the  same  year  the  custody  was 
regranted  to  John  Golafre,  Knight  of  the  King's  chamber,  at  a 
farm  of  £  600  (Beauchamp  had  paid  £  500). 6  In  1390,  however, 
the  young  Earl  of  Pembroke  was  killed  in  a  tournament,  and  ac- 
cording to  the  provisions  made  by  his  father,  the  estates  devolved 
upon  William  de  Beauchamp.  Other  heirs  contested  his  rights 
to  them,  but  he  won.  A  curious  story  told  about  his  claim,  is  as 
follows:  "Beauchamp  invited  his  learned  counsel  to  his  house  in 

1  Surrey  Arch.  Coll.  XVII,  29,  30.  2  Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  p.  257.  »  idem,  p.  350.  «  idem, 
p.  208.  Whether  these  were  part  of  the  Pembroke  holdings  or  not,  I  do  not  know. 
B  Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  p.  180.  8  idem,  p.  297. 


52  CHAUCER'S  OFFICIAL  LIFE 

Paternoster  Row  in  the  city  of  London;  amongst  whom  were 
Robert  Charlton  (then  a  judge),  "William  Pinchbek,  William 
Brenchesley,  and  John  Catesby  (all  learned  lawyers) ;  and  after  din- 
ner, coming  out  of  his  chapel  in  an  angry  mood,  threw  to  each  of 
them  a  piece  of  gold  and  said :  '  Sirs,  I  desire  you  forthwith  to  tell 
me,  whether  I  have  any  right  and  title  to  Hasting 's  lordships  and 
lands?'  Whereupon  Pinchbek  stood  up  (the  rest  being  silent, 
fearing  that  he  suspected  them)  and  said:  'No  man  here,  nor  in 
England,  dare  say  that  you  have  any  right  in  them,  except  Hast- 
ings 1  quit  his  claim  therein ;  and  should  he  do  it  being  now  under 
age,  it  would  be  of  no  validity.'  '  (Dugdale). 

In  1387  2  when  Richard  II  was  preparing  for  his  assault  upon 
the  Gloucester  faction  with  which  William  de  Beauchamp  was 
evidently,  as  his  brother  the  Earl  of  Warwick  was  certainly,  con- 
nected, he  tried  to  remove  Beauchamp  from  the  office  of  Captain  of 
Calais,  by  messenger.  Beauchamp  refused  to  leave  the  office,  "say- 
ing that  he  received  that  charge  and  trust  publicly  from  the  King, 
in  the  presence  of  his  nobles,  and  therefore  would  not  quit  it  in  a 
private  manner"  (Dugdale).  When  his  successor  arrived,  Beau- 
champ  arrested  him,  and  took  him  to  England.  There  Beauchamp 
himself  was  arrested  but  was  soon  released.  In  1393  he  was  sum- 
moned to  Parliament  as  Baron  Bergavenny  (a  title  received  in  con- 
nection with  the  Pembroke  estates).  From  1390-96  I  find  reference 
to  grants  of  land  made  by  him  to  religious  bodies.  He  seems  to  have 
been  rather  in  disfavour  in  these  closing  years  of  Richard  IPs 
reign,  but  under  Henry  IV  he  received  new  grants,  of  the  manor 
of  Feckenham,  rent-free,  and  of  the  custody  of  the  Castle  and 
county  of  Pembroke.  He  died  12  Henry  IV  and  was  buried  in 
Black  Friars,  Hereford. 

He  married  Joan,  second  sister  and  coheir  of  Thomas  Fitz 
Alen,  Earl  of  Arundel.  He  was  a  Knight  of  the  Garter.  Dugdale 
prints  (in  his  Warwickshire)  the  wills  of  William  de  Beauchamp 
and  his  wife,  remarkable  medieval  documents. 

RICHARD  FORESTER 

The  name  of  Richard  Forester  is  connected  with  Chaucer's  first 
in  1378,  when  Chaucer,  about  to  go  abroad  on  a  mission  for  the 
King,  had  letters  of  attorney  under  the  names  of  John  Gower  and 
Richard  Forester,3  and  again  in  1386,  when  a  lease  for  the  house 

1  Evidently  Edward  Hastings,  a  contesting  heir.  *  According  to  Beltz,  p.  229.  '  Life 
Records,  No.  120,  p.  216. 


OTHER  ASSOCIATES  OF  CHAUCER  53 

over  Aldgate  which  Chaucer  had  occupied  during  his  years  as 
controller  of  the  customs  in  London  was  made  out  by  the  Mayor 
and  Aldermen  to  Richard  Forester,  citizen  of  London.1  Various 
entries  with  regard  to  Richard  Forester  occur  in  the  public  rec- 
ords. Whether  all  of  them  refer  to  one  man  or  not,  and  whether 
any  concerns  Chaucer's  friend,  I  cannot  say.  I  shall  merely  pre- 
sent them  in  order  of  their  occurrence. 

In  37  Edward  III  Richard  Forester  was  appointed  custodian 
and  supervisor  of  the  river  bank  called  ' '  la  Ree  de  Ettemore. ' ' 2 
In  1369  he  is  on  the  list  of  esquires  of  less  degree.3  In  1370  ten 
pounds  were  paid  out  of  the  Exchequer  to  Richard  Forester,  of 
Stanton,  who  had  been  sent  with  six  archers  to  Shropshire  to  carry 
a  certain  sum  of  money  from  thence  to  London.4  Later  in  the 
same  year  he  received  ninety-one  pounds,  two  shillings,  seven  pence 
half  penny  for  the  expenses  of  himself,  his  men  at  arms  and  arch- 
ers in  the  war.5  In  44  Edward  III  "our  beloved  armiger"  Richard 
Forester  of  Stanton  was  granted  custody  of  the  manor  of  Stoke- 
laty  in  Hereford  which  had  belonged  to  Richard  Rissholm,  de- 
ceased.6 In  47  Edward  III,  Richard  la  Forester  de  Beckele  had  a 
grant  of  ten  pounds  and  one  robe  per  annum  as  a  "vallettus"  of 
the  royal  chamber.7  In  50  Edward  III  Richard  Forester  was 
granted  custody  of  the  manor  of  Waterpyrye  and  one  messuage  in 
Thomele  in  Oxfordshire,  and  the  manor  of  Wormenhale  in  Buck- 
inghamshire, during  the  minority  of  the  heir.8 

In  1378  Richard  II  confirmed  to  Richard  le  Forester  of  Beckele, 
"whom  the  King  has  retained  to  stay  with  him,"  his  annuity  of  ten 
pounds.9  In  5  Richard  II  the  King  granted  to  Richard  Forester 
and  his  son  Lambert  custody  of  the  royal  manor  of  Bekkele  with 
the  hamlet  of  Horton  for  ten  years  at  a  rent  of  fifty  marks  per 
annum.10  In  7  Richard  II  Forester  is  referred  to  as  an  inhabitant 
of  Oxfordshire.11  In  12  Richard  II  Richard  Forester  of  Stanton 
paid  two  marks  for  a  confirmation  of  a  grant  of  Edward  III  of  cer- 
tain lands  in  Oxfordshire.12  In  16  Richard  II  Richard  Forester, 
citizen  of  London,  with  a  group  of  London  mercers  acquired  some 
land.13  Again  in  21  Richard  II  he  acquired  more  land,  but  later 
assigned  it  to  his  associates.14 

JLife  Records,  No.  192,  p.  264.  2  Pat.  Roll  267,  mem.  6.  s  L.  R.,  p.  174.  *  Devon's 
Issues,  p.  170.  sidem,  p.  461.  "  Pat.  Roll  281,  mem.  36.  7  Pat.  Roll  289,  mem.  21. 
8  idem  293,  mem.  8.  "  Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  p.  126.  10  Fine  Roll  184,  mem.  14.  "  idem  187, 
mem.  25.  "idem  192,  mem.  3.  13  C.  R.  234,  mem.  20  dorso.  "  C.  R.  241,  mem.  14 
dorso,  mem.  12  dorso. 


54  CHAUCER'S  OFFICIAL  LIFE 

HENRY  SCOGAN 

"With  regard  to  Henry  Scogan  I  have  but  few  facts  which  do 
not  appear  in  Professor  Kittredge's  article.1  In  9  and  10  Richard 
II  he  was  a  vallettus  of  Simon  de  Burley's.  Many  entries  in  the 
Issue  Roll  of  those  years  indicate  that  he  was  employed  to  carry 
money  from  the  exchequer  to  de  Burley,  and  to  arrange  for  the  for- 
tification of  Dover.2  In  15  Richard  II  ten  pounds  were  given  to 
Henry  Scoggan,  scutifer,  at  Nottingham.3  In  20  Richard  II  Henry 
Scoggan  of  Reynham  granted  to  Thomas  Wery  and  others  three 
pieces  of  land  in  Tostes,  for  which  they  were  to  pay  him  a  penny 
yearly.4  In  the  same  year  he  and  John  Hollech,  chivaler,  went  on  a 
bond  for  Henry  Recheford,  under  penalty  of  two  hundred  pounds 
each,  that  the  latter  should  do  no  harm  to  the  Gedneys.5  In  21 
Richard  II  he  conveyed  a  hundred  shillings  from  the  Exchequer  in- 
to the  King's  chamber6 — an  action  which  suggests  that  he  was 
probably  connected  with  the  King's  court  at  this  time. 

OTO  DE  GRAUNSON 

The  only  important  fact  which  I  have  found  with  regard  to  de 
Graunson — aside  from  those  mentioned  in  Romania  XIX — is  an 
indenture  made  apparently  in  48  Edward  III,  between  Otz  de 
Granson  chivaler,  and  John  of  Lancaster.7  According  to  this 
document  de  Granson  agrees  to  serve  the  Duke  in  time  of  peace 
as  well  as  of  war  in  return  for  a  fee  of  a  hundred  marks  a  year. 

BUKTON 

Skeat  has  supposed  the  Bukton  mentioned  in  Chaucer's  Lenvoy 
a  Bukton,  to  be  Sir  Peter  Bukton  of  York.  There  is,  however,  at 
least  one  other  possibility.  A  Robert  de  Bukton  is  mentioned  in 
3  Richard  II  as  armiger  to  Thomas  de  Percy,8  with  whom  it  will 
be  remembered  Chaucer  had  some  three  years  before  been  asso- 
ciated in  a  diplomatic  mission.  In  14,  15  and  16  Richard  II, 
Robert  de  Bukton,  scutifer  of  Thomas  de  Percy,  is  frequently  men- 

1  Harvard  Studies  and  Notes  I.  'Issues,  P.  313,  mem.  12,  13,  19,  21  (2  entries) 
P.  314,  mem.  1,  4.  7,  12,  13.  P.  315,  mem.  15,  18.  P.  316,  mem.  1,  2,  16.  'Issues, 
P.  325,  mem.  8.  *  C.  R.  238,  mem.  32  dorso.  •  C.  R.  238,  mem.  12  dorso.  •  Issues,  P. 
343,  mem.  12.  '  Duchy  of  Lancaster  Registers,  No.  13  f,  134  dorso.  On  de  Graunson,  see 
note  in  Earl  of  Derby's  Expeditions  (Camden  Soc.)  p.  309.  "Issues,  P.  301,  mem.  21. 


OTHER  ASSOCIATES  OF  CHAUCER  55 

tioned  in  the  Issue  Roll  as  transmitting  money  from  the  Exchequer 
to  de  Percy,1  and  in  one  case  to  Louis  Clifford.2  In  15  Richard  II, 
the  King  inspected  and  confirmed  a  patent  of  Queen  Anne  dated 
15  Richard  II,  being  a  grant  for  the  term  of  her  life  to  her  esquire 
Robert  Bucton,  of  a  quantity  of  pasture  and  wood  called  "Gose- 
wold"  in  her  lordship  of  Eye,  "by  the  yearly  service  of  the  rent 
of  a  rose. " 3  In  1399  this  was  confirmed,4  and  in  1401  Robert  de 
Bukton  is  mentioned  as  constable  of  the  Castle  of  Eye.5  Robert  de 
Bukton  was  returned  to  Parliament  from  the  county  of  Suffolk  in 
17  Richard  II  (1393-4),  20  Richard  II  (1396-7),  21  Richard  II  ( 1397, 
1397-8)  and  2  Henry  IV,  (1400-1).  On  account  of  his  constant 
connection  with  the  court,  Robert  de  Bukton  would  seem  more  pro- 
bably to  have  been  Chaucer's  Bukton,  than  Skeat's  candidate.6 

1P.  323,  mem.  11.  P.  324,  mem.  1,  12,  21.  P.  327,  mem.  17,  P.  328,  mem.  16. 
P.  330,  mem.  1,  22.  2  P.  323,  mem.  8.  *  Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  p.  324.  *  idem  1399,  p.  16. 
6  idem  1401,  p.  540.  8  On  Sir  Peter  Bukton,  see  note  in  Scrope-Grosvenor  Roll,  II,  466-7, 
containing  many  facts  not  in  Skeat. 


CHAUCER'S  CAREER  AND  HIS  RELATION  TO  JOHN 

OF  GAUNT 

What  then  is  the  bearing  of  all  this  upon  Chaucer's  career? 
Let  us  take  up  the  matter  point  by  point.  In  the  first  place  it  is 
clear  that  although  in  a  few  cases  the  esquires  were  connected  with 
important  families,  in  none  did  any  come  from  a  major  branch  of 
an  important  family  and  in  most  the  derivation  is  from  ordinary 
stock.  Chaucer  was  then  associated  with  a  group  of  men  who 
came  from  much  the  same  class  as  himself.1 

Secondly  it  appears  that  the  esquires  were  frequently  the  sons 
of  men  connected  in  some  way  with  the  court.2  In  this  respect 
also  Chaucer  was  like  his  associates,  for  his  father,  in  1338  at  least 
was  in  the  King's  service.3  Further  many  of  the  esquires  had 
served  in  the  household  of  one  of  the  King 's  children  before  becom- 
ing members  of  the  King's  household.  In  this  respect  also  Chaucer 
with  his  service  in  the  Duke  of  Clarence's  house  was  like  a  number 
of  his  fellows. 

The  exact  nature  of  Chaucer's  position  in  the  household  it  is 
difficult  to  discover.  Dr.  Furnivall  supposed  from  an  entry  of  May 
25,  1368,  the  second  half  yearly  payment  of  Chaucer's  annuity, 
that  he  was  first  a  "vallettus"  of  the  King's  chamber.4  But  it  is 
by  no  means  certain  that  this  is  correct.  Chaucer  is  called  "val- 
lettus"  of  the  King's  chamber  only  once;  in  all  other  early  refer- 
ences he  is  described,  if  at  all,  as  "vallectus  hospicii  Regis." 
There  is,  I  believe,  a  difference  between  these  two.  As  I  have  already 
pointed  out,8  a  certain  confusion  with  regard  to  the  use  of  such 
phrases  undoubtedly  exists  in  the  records.  As  evidence  of  this 
confusion  we  find  men  called  "vallettus"  after  they  have  been 
called  "armiger,"  and  sometimes  men  who  are  normally  called 
"vallettus  camere  Regis"  named  as  "vallettus  hospicii  Regis." 
Yet  if  we  look  up  the  entries  with  regard  to  the  men  called  "val- 
letz  de  la  chambre  du  Roi"  in  the  list  of  1368,6  we  find  that  in 
such  records  as  the  Patent  Rolls  where  definitely  characterized,7 
they  are  generally  referred  to  as  "vallettus  camere  nostre."  For 

lCf.F  pp.  6-11  above.  »p.  12.  » L.  R.  No.  13,  p.  145  Intro,  p.  XI.  « L.  R.  No. 
50,  p.  161.  Bp.  17  above.  •  L.  R.,  p.  167.  T  In  many  cases,  of  course,  they  are  called 
merely  "vallettus  noster,"  "dilectns  vallettus"  or  "dilectus  servitor." 


CHAUCER'S  CAREER  AND  HIS  RELATION  TO  JOHN  OP  GAUNT      57 

example,  William  Gambon  is  so  titled  seven  times  and  never  as 
"vallettus  hospicii  nostri."  1  Reginald  Neuport  is  called  six  times 
"vallettus  camere  Regis."  2  John  Tipet  is  called  the  same  at  least 
five  times,  and  never  by  any  other  title.3  Thomas  Cheyne  is  called 
"vallettus  camere  Regis"  five  times.4  Thomas  Loveden  alone  is 
called  "vallettus  hospicii  Regis"  twice  and  "vallettus  camere" 
once.5  Under  the  circumstances,  if  Chaucer  ever  was  a  "vallettus 
camerae  Regis,"  we  should  expect  him  to  have  been  so  called  more 
than  once.  It  seems  rather  more  likely  that  his  proper  position 
was  that  of  "vallettus  hospicii  Regis"6  and  later  of  course,  "ar- 
miger"  or  "scutifer. "  This  view  is  of  course  supported  by  the 
fact  that  in  the  household  lists  his  name  does  not  appear  in  1368 
as  a  "vallet  de  la  chambre  du  Roi"  or  in  1369  even  near  the  names 
of  men  who  had  been  "valletti"  of  the  King's  chamber.  Further 
that  Chaucer's  position  by  1368  was  distinctly  honourable  appears 
from  the  fact  that  his  name  appears  as  Esquier  among  a  group  of 
men  who  were  not  engaged  in  menial  occupations  of  any  kind — as 
distinguished  from  the  cooks  and  farriers  of  the  groups  called 
"esquiers  survenantz"  and  "sergeantz  des  offices  parvantz  fur- 
rures  a  chaperon." 

With  regard  to  Chaucer's  employment  as  an  envoy  abroad,  it 
is  clear  that  he  was,  when  so  engaged,  performing  a  customary  ser- 
vice, that  indeed  he  was  one  of  several  who  were  constantly  used 
in  minor  missions  abroad  and  that  his  rank  and  duties  were  similar 
to  those  of  a  King's  messenger  today.7  Likewise  the  rewards  which 
Chaucer  received  were  not  extraordinary.  Practically  every  es- 
quire of  Chaucer's  rank  who  remained  for  any  considerable  time 
in  the  court  received  an  annuity ;  evidently  such  pensions  were  part 
of  the  perquisites  of  the  office.  A  few  esquires  received  a  smaller 
annuity  than  Chaucer's,  many  received  about  the  same  amount, 
and  many  received  more.8  Similarly  the  special  offices  which 
Chaucer  held,  particularly  his  controllerships,  were  not  evidences 

1  Pat.  Roll  285,  mem.  2,  idem  274,  mem.  37,  257,  mem.  25.  Cal.  Pat.  Roll  1377,  p. 
79.  Issues,  P.  228,  mem.  17.  C.  R.  207,  mem.  12.  Pat.  Roll  295,  mem.  26.  2  Cal.  Pat. 
Roll  1378,  p.  139.  Issues,  P.  237,  mem.  17.  P.  249,  mem.  3.  P.  251,  mem.  ?  Pat. 
Roll  288,  mem.  21,  etc.  'Issues  A  169,  mem.  35.  P.  228,  mem.  17.  P.  228,  mem.  38. 
P.  235,  mem.  20,  etc.  *  Pat.  Roll  262,  mem.  23,  254,  mem.  4,  255,  mem.  25,  Cal.  Rot. 
Pat.  Turr.  Lon.  p.  174.  Abb.  Rot.  Orig.  II,  222.  B  Issues,  P.  237,  mem.  8.  P.  250, 
mem.  1.  Pat.  Roll  266,  mem.  5.  'The  household  books,  published  in  the  Chaucer  Rec- 
ords, recognize  no  such  classification  as  "vallettus  hospicii  Regis,"  yet  the  records  cer- 
tainly point  to  the  existence  of  such  a  classification.  T  Cf.  pp.  19,  20  above.  •  Of.  p. 
21  ff. 


58  CHAUCER'S  OFFICIAL  LIFE 

of  remarkable  favour :  other  esquires  received  the  same  kind  of 
offices  and  indeed  they  were  apparently  regular  sinecures  for  the 
members  of  the  King's  household.1  So  also  the  grant  of  wardships 
and  forfeited  goods  can  be  paralleled  in  many  cases.  In  two  re- 
spects Chaucer  received  rather  less  than  the  other  esquires — he  was 
given  no  corrody  and  no  grant  of  land. 

In  one  more  respect  can  Chaucer's  career  be  paralleled  by  that 
of  other  "esquires" — in  that  of  his  marriage.  Marriages  between 
the  esquires  of  the  King  and  the  damsels  of  the  queen  were  de- 
cidedly frequent.2 

Indeed,  it  is  clear  from  the  study  of  the  careers  of  the  other 
esquires  that,  so  far  as  we  know,  Chaucer  received  no  exceptional 
favours,  and  that  his  career  was  in  practically  every  respect  a  typi- 
cal esquire's  career. 

In  all  this  then  there  is  no  evidence  that  Chaucer  enjoyed  the 
favour  of  any  particular  patron.  Aside  from  the  fact  that,  like 
Chaucer,  some  of  the  esquires  had  served  in  the  household  of  one 
of  the  King's  children  before  entering  the  King's,  I  have  been  able 
in  no  case  to  find  evidence  of  connection  between  them  and  any 
patron.  Since  Chaucer  received  no  more  favours  than  did  the 
average  esquire,  there  is  no  particular  reason  to  suppose  that  he 
had  any  patron. 

Now  let  us  examine  the  evidence  in  favour  of  his  close  connec- 
tion with  John  of  Gaunt.  We  have  two  pieces  of  definite  evidence 
of  a  connection  between  Chaucer  and  John  of  Gaunt;  Chaucer's 
writing  (probably  shortly  after  1369)  of  the  Book  of  the  Duchess, 
and  John  of  Gaunt 's  grant  of  an  annuity  of  ten  pounds  in  June 
1374.  The  former  does  not  prove  anything  with  regard  to  a  defi- 
nite relation;  such  complimentary  poems  were  commonly  written 
for  nobles  who  were  not  special  patrons  of  the  poets ;  and  Chaucer 
in  his  Parlement  of  Foules  possibly  complimented  Richard  II  in 
much  the  same  way.  In  regard  to  the  latter  piece  of  evidence — 
John  of  Gaunt 's  grant  of  an  annuity — two  things  are  to  be  noted, 
first  that  John  of  Gaunt  had  previously  given  an  annuity  to  Phi- 
lippa  Chaucer  (in  1372)  and,  second,  that  in  the  grant  he  gives 
the  cause  of  making  it  to  Chaucer  as  services  rendered  by  Chaucer 
to  the  Duke  and  by  Chaucer's  wife  to  Queen  Philippa  and  the 

i  Cf.  p.  22  ff.     »  Cf.  p.  25  ff. 


CHAUCER'S  CAREER  AND  HIS  RELATION  TO  JOHN  OF  GAUNT      59 

Duke's  Consort.  In  the  grant  to  Philippa  on  the  other  hand  no 
mention  is  made  of  Geoffrey.  This  greater  particularity  in  the 
statement  of  Philippa 's  services  in  Geoffrey's  grant,  the  fact  that 
Philippa  was  in  the  duke's  household  (evidenced  by  the  Christmas 
gifts  of  silver  cups  to  her)  and  the  fact  that  nothing  else  connects 
Chaucer  definitely  with  John  of  Gaunt,  make  it  seem  almost  certain 
that  the  grant  of  an  annuity  to  Chaucer  was  made  merely  in  order 
to  increase  the  sum  given  to  Philippa.  Grants  of  this  time  which 
mention  the  services  of  both  husband  and  wife  are  usually  made 
out  to  both,  and  undoubtedly  in  this  case  the  real  purpose  was  to 
give  it  to  Philippa  and  her  husband. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  John  of  Gaunt  really  was  "Chaucer's 
great  patron, ' '  why  did  he  not  give  the  poet  employment  in  his  own 
household  ?  Anyone  who  will  run  thru  the  Lancashire  Registers  of 
this  time  will  be  struck  with  the  immensity  of  the  duke's  income 
and  the  regal  scale  of  his  household.1  Surely  had  he  wished  to 
patronize  the  poet,  he  could  have  done  so  most  easily  and  most  sure- 
ly by  giving  him  some  honorable  post  in  his  own  control.  Why 
should  he  have  taken  the  difficult  method  of  procuring  him  pre- 
carious offices  under  the  King  ? 

Since  the  assertions  with  regard  to  John  of  Gaunt 's  ascendancy 
over  Chaucer's  career  have  been  so  common,  however,  we  ought  to 
take  up  the  matter  point  by  point.  We  have  no  reason  to  connect 
John  of  Gaunt  with  Chaucer's  start  in  the  world — his  employment 
in  the  household  of  the  Countess  of  Clarence.  We  know  that 
Chaucer's  father  had  relations  with  the  court  and,  although  merely 
a  merchant,  he  may  very  likely  have  secured  Chaucer's  appoint- 
ment to  the  place  in  the  Countess's  household,  as  the  fathers  of 
Simon  de  Burley  (not  a  merchant,  but  a  man  of  no  rank),  Michael 
de  la  Pole,  (a  merchant),  John  Legge,  Thomas  Frowyk  and 
Thomas  Hauteyn  obtained  appointments  for  their  children  in  the 
households  of  the  Prince  of  Wales  and  of  the  King.  This  was  an 
age  when  the  merchant  class  was  obtaining  unusual  power  and 
privileges.  Richard  II,  it  will  be  remembered,  was  called  the  "Lon- 
doner's King."  It  has  been  shown  that  John  of  Gaunt  visited 

1  Of.  Abstracts  and  Indexes  I  f.  137  dorso.  Warrant  to  deliver  to  a  damsel  for  the 
queen  (i.  e.  John  of  Gaunt's  Spanish  wife)  1708  pearls  of  the  largest,  2000  of  the  second 
sort.  Warrant  to  bring  him  at  the  Savoy  all  the  Rolls  of  Accounts  of  all  his  Recevors 
General  and  of  his  Treasurers  of  War  and  of  the  Household  and  other  officers  of  the 
Household,  there  to  be  deposited  and  safely  kept.  Next  page — long  list  of  jewels. 


60  CHAUCER'S  OFFICIAL  LIFE 

the  Countess  of  Clarence  at  Christinas  1357,  and  it  has  been  sug- 
gested that  he  may  have  met  Chaucer  then  and  taken  a  liking  to 
him.  Of  actual  meeting,  however,  we  have  no  proof.  Chaucer  was 
in  the  service  of  the  Duke  of  Clarence  in  October  I860.1 ;  the 
Duchess  of  Clarence  died  in  1363;  and  we  learn  of  him  next  in 
the  King's  household  in  1367.  The  transition  from  the  household 
of  the  wife  of  one  of  the  King's  sons  to  that  of  the  King  himself 
is  one  which  can  be  paralleled  in  many  cases;  we  have  no  need 
to  suppose  patronage  on  the  part  of  the  Duke  of  Lancaster  to  ac- 
count for  it.  As  a  matter  of  fact  we  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that 
John  of  Gaunt  knew  anything  of  Chaucer  at  this  time. 

The  diplomatic  missions,  and  the  grants  of  annuities  and  offices 
.were  not,  as  I  have  shown,  evidences  of  special  favour;  they  were 
a  regular  thing  in  the  King's  court.  We  have  no  reason  to  suppose 
that  John  of  Gaunt 's  influence  in  favour  of  Chaucer  was  a  cause 
for  any  of  them.  Further  John  of  Gaunt 's  influence  would  have 
been  worthless  in  helping  Chaucer  to  become  Justice  of  the  Peace 
in  Kent  in  1385.  This  appointment  must  have  been  made  by  the 
Chancellor — Michael  de  la  Pole— possibly  at  the  recommendation  of 
the  Lord  Lieutenant  of  the  County  or  the  Gustos  Rotulorum. 
Whether  there  was  a  Lord  Lieutenant  of  Kent  or  not,  I  do  not 
know.  At  any  rate  the  constable  of  Dover  Castle  and  Warden  of 
the  Cinque  Ports  (at  this  time  Simon  de  Burley)  held  powers  in 
Kent  similar  to  those  of  a  lord  lieutenant,  and  he  occupies  the  posi- 
tion of  the  lord  lieutenant  in  the  list  of  Justices  of  the  Peace — at 
the  top.  Both  de  la  Pole  and  de  Burley  were  enemies  of  John  of 
Gaunt.  Even  if  the  appointment  was  not  due  to  them,  we  cannot 
ascribe  it  to  John  of  Gaunt,  for  I  have  been  able  to  find  no  evidence 
that  John  of  Gaunt  had  influence  in  Kent,  or  that  he  controlled  any 
of  the  other  Justices. 

Furthermore  that  Chaucer  did  not  owe  his  place  in  the  customs 
to  the  influence  of  John  of  Gaunt  is  clear  from  the  fact  that  the 
collectorships  of  customs  in  London,  at  any  rate,  were  controlled 
by  the  duke's  enemies.  If  they  had  sufficient  power  with  the  king 
to  gain  control  of  those  offices,  it  hardly  seems  likely  that  the  King 
would  appoint  a  member  of  the  faction  opposed  to  them  to  serve 
with  them.  It  is  to  be  noted  also  that  Chaucer  on  account  of  the 

1  See  Modern  Lang.  Notes  March  1912  article  of  Dr.  Samuel  Moore  on  The  New 
Chaucer  Item. 


CHAUCER'S  CAREER  AND  HIS  RELATION  TO  JOHN  OF  GAUNT      61 

business  connections  of  his  family — his  father  was  a  vintner  and 
another  relative  evidently  a  pepperer — would  be  more  likely  to 
sympathize  with  the  party  of  Brembre  than  with  that  of  North- 
ampton. 

Now  we  come  to  a  point  where  nearly  all  writers  on  Chaucer 
make  inferences  in  regard  to  John  of  Gaunt 's  influence — Chaucer's 
separation  from  the  office  of  controller  of  the  customs.  Most  writ- 
ers have  said  more  or  less  directly  that  Chaucer  lost  the  office  be- 
cause John  of  Gaunt  had  left  England  earlier  in  the  same  year. 
The  facts  themselves  show  indubitably  that  Chaucer's  leaving 
office  was  in  no  respect  due  to  John  of  Gaunt 's  departure.  Before 
discussing  this  matter,  I  must  say  a  word  about  the  political  sit- 
uation before  1386  and  in  that  year.  At  the  very  end  of  Edward 
Ill's  reign  John  of  Gaunt,  who  had  been  the  real  power  since  the 
death  of  the  Black  Prince,  became  extremely  unpopular  because  of 
his  bad  administration  of  the  government  and  his  quarrels  with 
the  Londoners.  This  unpopularity  continued  both  in  the  court 
and  without.  Under  the  new  King  the  great  duke  had  little  in- 
fluence; he  was  not  even  included  in  the  great  council  appointed 
to  control  the  government  during  the  King's  minority.  Further  a 
group  of  young  men,  connected  with  the  King,  gradually  assumed 
charge  of  affairs — Michael  de  la  Pole,  Robert  de  Vere  and  others. 
These  men  were  outright  enemies  of  John  of  Gaunt ;  according  to 
the  stories  of  the  time  they  even  made  plots  to  poison  and  to  stab 
him.  He  himself  retired  from  active  political  life  and,  apparently, 
largely  because  he  saw  no  chance  for  gaining  great  power  in  Eng- 
land, turned  his  attention  to  his  Spanish  projects ; 1  and  in  1386 
he  left  England  for  Spain.  Others  of  the  great  lords,  however, 
were  not  content  to  play  a  passive  role;  the  brother  of  John  of 
Gaunt,  Gloucester,  as  leader,  and  the  Earl  of  Arundel  and  War- 
wick, most  prominent  followers,  were  particularly  violent  in  their 
attacks  on  the  King  and  his  friends.  To  revert  now  to  Chaucer's 
case :  these  are  the  significant  facts  in  their  order : 

End  of  March,  1386  2        John  of  Gaunt  leaves  England. 

October  24,  1386  Gloucester,  Arundel  et  al.  succeed  in 

ousting  Michael  de  la  Pole  and  the 
King's  other  cabinet  officers. 

1  Trevelyan's  view.     *  Or  July  7  according  to  Oman. 


62  CHAUCER'S  OFFICIAL  LIFE 

December,  1386  .m  Yardley  and  Henry  Gisors  are 

appointed   to   Chaucer's  places  in 
the  customs. 

These  dates  speak  for  themselves;  they  show  indubitably  that 
Chaucer  was  not  removed  from  office  shortly  after  John  of  Gaunt 's 
departure;  that  he  was  not  removed  from  office  (if  at  all)  until  the 
friends  of  John  of  Gaunt,  the  men  who  represented  his  interests,1 
had  in  some  measure  at  least  gained  the  government  of  the  Kingdom. 

A  similar  condition  of  affairs  appears  when  Chaucer  was  ap- 
pointed to  his  next  office  in  1389. 

May,  1389  The  King  regained  power — dismissed  Glou- 

cester's friends  from  office  and  appointed 
his  own. 

July  12,  1389  He  made  Chaucer  clerk  of  his  works  at 

Westminster. 

August,  1389  He  seems  to  have  asked  John  of  Gaunt  to 

return  to  England. 

November,  1389         John  of  Gaunt  actually  returned. 
Richard  II  then  appointed  Chaucer  to  that  place  a  little  over  a 
month  after  he  had  regained  his  authority,  and  four  months  before 
John  of  Gaunt  appeared  in  England. 

Finally  we  cannot  connect  John  of  Gaunt  in  any  way  with 
Chaucer's  departure  from  the  office  of  Clerk  of  the  Works  in 
June,  1391.  From  John  of  Gaunt 's  return  to  England  in  1389 
until  1395  he  seems  to  have  been  influential  with  the  King.  In 
1390  he  was  made  Duke  of  Aquitaine  for  life.  In  1392  he  was  am- 
bassador to  France,  in  1393  he  aided  in  putting  down  a  revolt  in 
Chester.  He  was  in  England,  apparently,  most  of  this  time. 

Certainly  the  analysis  of  Chaucer's  life  does  not  confirm  the 
theory  that  John  of  Gaunt  exercised  a  ruling  influence  over  his 
destiny.  Nor  does  a  study  of  the  connections  of  his  associates  in- 
dicate his  dependency  on  John  of  Gaunt.  His  friend  William  de 
Beauchamp  was  at  a  later  date  certainly  a  member  of  the  Gloucester- 
Warwick  faction.  But  in  1378  and  1380,  when  Chaucer  was  ap- 
parently connected  with  him,  Beauchamp  was  a  member  of  the 
King's  household  (from  1379  on  chamberlain  of  the  household), 
evidently  in  favour  with  the  King  and  not  a  partisan  of  the  Lan- 

1  In  the  following  year  his  son  and  heir,  the  Earl  of  Derby,  was  one  of  the  "lord 
appellants." 


CHAUCER'S  CAREER  AND  HIS  RELATION  TO  JOHN  OF  GAUNT      63 

caster-Gloucester  faction.  Further  we  know  that  Chaucer  asso- 
ciated in  a  business  way  at  least  with  Brembre,  Philipot  and  Wai- 
worth,  that  he  probably  knew  Thomas  Usk,  that  the  latter  admired 
him,  and  that  in  the  King's  household  he  was  connected  with  some 
men  like  John  de  Beauchamp  and  John  de  Salesbury  who  were  not 
friends  to  John  of  Gaunt.  Yet  toward  the  end  of  Richard  II 's 
reign  we  find  Chaucer  connected  in  some  way  with  John  of  Gaunt 's 
son,  and  when  a  few  years  later  that  son  ascended  the  throne  as 
Henry  IV,  Chaucer  received  new  annuities  and  aids.  The  fact  then 
that  Chaucer  was  friendly  with  prominent  men  in  both  factions 
makes  it  incredible  that  his  fortunes  were  dependent  on  those  of 
John  of  Gaunt. 

One  other  suggestion — was  John  of  Gaunt  likely  to  have  had 
enough  interest  in  poetry  to  patronize  a  poet?  I  have  found  no 
evidence  that  he  did  patronize  other  poets  or  artists  of  any  kind, 
and  the  impression  of  his  character  which  a  careful  scholar  like  Mr. 
Trevelyan  has  gained  from  a  study  of  his  career,  is  not  that  he  was 
such  a  man  as  would  be  interested  in  the  arts. 

From  all  these  facts,  I  do  not  see  how  it  can  be  maintained 
that  John  of  Gaunt  was  Chaucer's  "great  patron."  The  evidence, 
so  far  as  I  can  make  out  at  present,  leads  one  to  the  conclusion  that 
Chaucer  must  have  received  his  offices  and  royal  annuities  from  the 
King  rather  than  from  John  of  Gaunt,  at  times  when  John  of 
Gaunt 's  influence  would  have  been  harmful  rather  than  beneficial, 
or  when  John  of  Gaunt  was  not  in  England  to  exercise  it. 

CHAUCER'S  RELATION  TO  RICHARD  II 

Certain  recent  investigations  have  suggested  that  Richard  II 
and  his  consort  Anne  may  have  been  patrons  of  Chaucer.  For  this 
theory  the  most  definite  evidence  is  derived  from  references  to 
Queen  Anne  in  several  of  the  poems.  The  most  obvious  of  these 
references  is  that  in  Prologue  to  L.  G.  W.,  version  F.  11.  496,  7; 
another  is  the  one  implied  in  Koch's  explanation  for  the  writing  of 
P.  F. ;  and  Professor  Lowes  finds  two  more  in  his  interpretations  of 
a  line  in  K.  T.1  and  of  one  in  the  Troilus.2  Since  this  investigation 
has  to  do  wholly  with  external  evidences  as  to  Chaucer's  life,  it 
is  not  my  business  to  deal  with  these  references.  I  would  merely 
point  out  that  they  can  derive  no  active  support  from  the  facts 

*M.  L.  N.  XIX,  240-242.     2  P.  M.  L.  A.  32;  285  S. 


64  CHAUCER'S  OFFICIAL  LIFE 

which  we  know  about  Chaucer's  life,  for  there  is  no  exceptional 
feature  of  his  career  as  an  esquire  which  points  toward  patronage 
by  anyone.  We  have  no  right  from  the  circumstances  of  his  re- 
wards and  appointments  to  suppose  that  Richard  even  knew  that 
he  was  a  poet,  certainly  none  to  suppose  that  Richard  enjoyed  his 
poetry  and  patronized  him  because  of  it. 

To  be  sure  we  have  certain  evidences  of  Richard  IPs  interest 
in  literature,  especially  the  well  known  stories  of  his  suggestion 
to  Gower  that  the  poet  write  the  Confessio  Amantis,  his  gift  to 
Froissart  for  the  latter 's  book  of  poems,  and  the  payment  entered 
in  1380  on  the  Issue  Roll  of  twenty-eight  pounds  for  the  Bible 
written  in  French,1  the  Romance  of  the  Rose  and  the  Romances 
of  Percevale  and  Gawayn.  But  those  are  all ;  a  careful  reading  of 
the  Issue  Roll  for  all  the  years  of  Richard's  reign  has  failed  to  turn 
up  another  entry  which  would  indicate  an  interest  in  literature. 
It  is  to  be  noted  further  that  in  the  entire  body  of  poems  left  to 
us  by  Chaucer  but  a  few  unmistakable  references  to  the  queen 
occur,  and  none  to  the  King.  If  Chaucer  is  compared  in  this 
respect  with  his  successors  Hoccleve  and  Lydgate  a  marked  differ- 
ence appears.  In  a  single  volume  of  Hoccleve  before  me  2  occur 
three  "balades"  to  Henry  V,  one  to  the  Duke  of  York,  one  to  the 
Duke  of  Bedford,  and  one  to  the  Lord  Chancellor.  Perhaps  the 
striking  contrast  between  this  and  Chaucer's  practice  is  due  to 
different  notions  as  to  the  function  of  poetry,  perhaps  to  some 
other  cause,  but  it  exists,  and  it  causes  one  to  feel  that,  in  compar- 
ison with  Hoceleve  at  least,  the  internal  evidences  of  patronage  in 
Chaucer's  poems  are  slight  indeed.  Finally  the  fact  that  Chaucer 
was  treated  favourably  by  the  government  of  Henry  IV  would  sug- 
gest that  his  personal  relations  with  Richard  II  had  not  been  very 
close. 

SOME  GENERAL  POINTS 

Although  I  have  objected  to  some  of  the  inferences  drawn  by 
others,  nevertheless  it  seems  to  me  that  from  the  facts  viewed  in 
their  new  relations,  some  legitimate  inferences  may  be  drawn.  In 
the  first  place  it  seems  almost  certain  that  by  1386  Chaucer  held 
considerable  land  in  Kent.  Every  other  man  on  the  list  of  Justices 

1  Devon's  translation,  p.  213,  is  incorrect:  the  phrase  in  the  document  is  "lingua  gal- 
lica."  Issues  P.  301,  mem.  16.  *  Hoccleve's  works  I,  E.  E.  T.  S.  1892. 


CHAUCER'S  CAREER  AND  HIS  RELATION  TO  JOHN  OF  GAUNT      65 

of  the  Peace  (with  the  single  possible  exception  of  Topclyff)  held 
fairly  extensive  lands  in  the  county;  all  except  de  Burley,  Top- 
clyff and  Chaucer  were  of  old  Kentish  families.  De  Burley's  im- 
portance as  Constable  of  Dover  (indeed  he  undoubtedly  held  the 
office  of  Justice  ex  officio)  and  Topclyff 's  position  as  steward  of 
the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  counterbalanced  the  fact  that  they 
were  not  of  Kentish  stock.  What  then  of  Chaucer?  He  surely 
must  have  held  a  manor  and  lands  of  considerable  value  or  he  could 
never  have  been  high  enough  in  the  estimation  of  the  landed  pro- 
prietors to  gain  the  Justiceship  and  even  the  membership  to  Par- 
liament. Now,  he  apparently  did  not  receive  this  land  by  royal 
grant;  consequently  it  would  appear  that  he  must  have  had  it  by 
grant  of  some  great  noble  or  by  purchase.  In  any  case  we  have  no 
record  to  indicate  what  land  he  held  or  by  what  tenure  he  held  it. 

Again  we  do  not  know  what  Chaucer's  income  as  controller  of 
the  customs  amounted  to.  It  is  apparent,  however,  that  the  returns 
from  the  office  of  controller  of  the  greater  custom  must  have  been 
very  considerable.  If  the  collectorship  of  the  customs  was  not  a 
profitable  office,  it  is  impossible  to  see  why  such  men  as  Walworth, 
Philipot,  and  Brembre  should  have  cared  to  hold  it.  That  the 
twenty  pounds  which  was  their  nominal  salary  was  anything  like 
all  that  they  received  is  unbelievable.  To  suppose  that  a  man  who 
could  fit  out  a  fleet  at  his  own  expense  and  successfully  campaign 
with  it  against  a  powerful  pirate,  should  allow  himself  to  be  an- 
noyed by  so  paltry  an  office  is  absurd.  Yet  the  office  was  apparently 
not  farmed,  and  so  it  seems  likely  that  the  income  from  fees  was 
large  and  attractive.1  To  how  great  an  extent  Chaucer,  aside  from 
the  ten  pounds  yearly  that  he  received,  shared  in  the  profits,  we  do 
not  know.  From  the  fact  that  the  King  in  giving  the  collectors 
and  the  controller  extra  rewards  seems  to  have  rated  the  latter  at 
about  a  third  of  the  importance  of  the  former,  we  might  get  some 
hint  of  the  proportion  in  which  he  would  share  in  the  fees. 

Chaucerian  scholars  have  laid  great  stress  upon  the  grant  of 
permission  to  Chaucer  in  1385  to  appoint  a  permanent  deputy  in 
his  office  in  the  greater  customs.  They  have  even  assumed 
that  the  L.  G.  W.  was  dedicated  to  the  queen  out  of  gratitude  for 
her  supposed  intercession  with  the  king,  and  the  consequent  per- 
mission, and  have  used  these  suppositions  as  evidence  for  dating 

1  The  View  of  W.  D.  Chester:  Chronicles  of  the  Custom's  Dept.,  p.  30. 


66  CHAUCER'S  OFFICIAL  LIFE 

L.  G.  W.  Surely  too  much  has  been  made  of  this  matter.  Not 
only  have  we  no  evidence  whatever  to  connect  Queen  Anne  with 
the  granting  of  the  deputyship ;  we  do  not  have  to  assume  any  in- 
tercession with  the  king.1  We  know  that  esquires  who  were  granted 
offices  in  the  customs  frequently  did  have  deputies  in  their  offices ; 2 
probably  leave  to  have  a  deputy  could  be  had  almost  for  the  asking. 
Moreover,  the  office  of  controller,  if  we  can  judge  from  the  rec- 
ords of  Chaucer's  time  (cf.  Mr.  Kirk's  print  in  the  Chaucer  So- 
ciety— not  yet  issued)  could  not  have  been  a  very  burdensome  one. 
Yet  even  the  provision  that  Chaucer  write  the  records  with  his  own 
hand  was  not — in  the  opinion  of  the  officials  of  the  Record  Office — 
held  to  even  as  early  as  1381.  The  reason  for  this  judgment  is  that 
the  preserved  records  are  written  in  a  decidedly  good  Chancery 
hand,  a  style  of  writing  which  only  a  professional  Chancery  clerk  is 
supposed  to  have  been  master  of.3  Consequently  either  Chaucer 
must  have  been  a  regular  Chancery  clerk,  or  he  employed  a  clerk  to 
write  up  the  records.  If  he  did  the  latter — as  seems  most  likely — it 
is  hard  to  see  what  work  of  importance  can  have  been  left  to  him- 
self. Why  then  should  he  care  for  a  permanent  deputy?  If  we 
look  at  the  circumstances  of  his  life  in  1385,  we  may  discover  a  pos- 
sible reason.  In  that  year,  he  first  appears  prominently  in  con- 
nection with  Kent.  The  sequence  of  events  is : 

February,  1385 — deputy  appointed. 

October,  1385 — Justice  of  the  Peace  in  Kent. 

June,  1386 — Justice  of  the  Peace  in  Kent. 

August,  1386 — Member  of  Parliament  for  Kent. 
He  must  have  been  out  of  London  at  latest  some  time  early  in 
1385,  and  he  may  have  been  occupied  with  the  purchase  and  man- 
agement of  whatever  land  he  possessed  in  Kent,  and  writh  the  poli- 
tics of  that  county.  Consequently,  he  may  have  desired  to  have  a 
recognized  deputy  in  the  office  who  would  relieve  him  of  all  offi- 
cial responsibility.  One  can  see  no  reason  why  he  should  have  felt 
particularly  grateful  for  the  grant  of  this  merely  technical  freedom. 
Furthermore  we  can  have  no  knowledge,  with  our  present  in- 
formation alone,  of  why  Chaucer  ceased  to  be  controller  at  the  end 
of  1386.  I  have  already  shown  that  this  could  not  have  been  due 

1  See  forthcoming  article:  Chaucer  and  the  Earl  of  Oxford,  in  Modern  Philology. 

1  Cf.  cases  of  John  de  Herlyng,  Helming  Leget,  John  Hermesthorpe  et  al. 

1  See  Tales  of  the  Canterbury  Pilgrims,  Stokes  &  Co.,  Intro.,  by  Furnivall,  p.  X  note. 


CHAUCER'S  CAREER  AND  HIS  RELATION  TO  JOHN  OF  GAUNT      67 

to  John  of  Gaunt 's  absence  from  England.  It  is  almost  equally 
certain  that  it  was  not  due  to  the  fact  that  Chaucer  was  a  partisan 
of  the  King  or  that  the  council  of  thirteen  was  instructed  to  inquire 
into  the  conduct  of  the  King's  offices  and  to  initiate  reforms.1  The 
proof  of  those  statements  is  this :  so  far  as  we  know  Chaucer's  only 
fault  in  the  conduct  of  these  offices  was  the  fact  that  he  "per- 
formed ' '  them  by  deputy ;  now,  although  the  two  offices  were  granted 
in  December  to  Adam  Yardley  2  and  Henry  Gisorz,3  the  controller- 
ship  of  the  greater  custom  was  re-granted  scarcely  six  months  later 
to  John  Hermesthorpe  4  (July  2,  1387)  and  with  that  very  grant  he 
was  empowered  to  exercise  the  office  by  deputy. 

Furthermore  Henry  Gisorz,  who  succeeded  Chaucer  in  the  con- 
trollership  of  the  petty  customs,  was  appointed  by  Chaucer  as  his 
deputy,  in  7  Richard  II 5  in  that  office.  This  office  was  re-granted 
September  2,  1388  to  Robert  Kesteven.6  Now  in  the  case  of  the 
controllership  of  the  greater  customs,  it  seems  evident  that  Adam 
Yardeley  was  merely  put  into  the  office  as  a  stop-gap.  Note  that  he 
was  not  considered  of  sufficient  importance  to  be  given  another 
grant  in  1387  to  compensate  him  for  the  loss  of  the  office.  And 
similarly  in  that  of  the  lesser  customs,  it  seems  clear  that  Gisors, 
Chaucer's  deputy  in  the  office,  was  appointed  temporarily  to  the 
office,  on  the  departure  of  Chaucer,  and  deprived  of  it  again  as  soon 
as  the  King  found  some  one  to  whom  he  wished  to  give  a  sinecure. 

1  As  Colton  in  his  book  on  Chaucer's  England  assumes,  pp.  58-59. 

2  Adam  Yardeley,  clericus,   was  in  1383   joined  with  a  sergeant  at  arms  to  take  and 
arrest  mariners  for  the  passage  of  the  Bishop  of  Norwich  across  the  channel.     This  would 
suggest  that  he  was  connected  in  some  way  with  the  court,  since  such  duties  were  com- 
monly assigned  to  esquires  and  clerks  of  the  court. 

3  Henry  Gisors  seems  to  have  come  from  an  eminent  London  family.      (Riley  Mem- 
orials  pp.    74,    185.      Ancient   Deeds,    A    7833.      Maitland   History   of    London,    p.    825). 
In   11  Richard  II  and  16  Richard  II  he  was  concerned  with  John  Hermesthorpe  in  cer- 
tain transfers  of  land  in  London.      (Ancient  Deeds,  B  2118,  2121). 

4  John  Hermesthorpe  was   a   very  much  more   important  person.      He  was   for   some 
years  one  of  the  chamberlains  of  the  King's  exchequer,  probably  as  early  as  1370  when  on 
one  day  he   conveyed  payments  of  their   annuities  to   Philippa   Chaucer   and   three   other 
damsels  of  the  queen.     He  was  likewise  a  priest,   for  a  time  confessor  to  the  King,   and 
holder  of  various  ecclesiastical  preferments,   in   London  and  elsewhere.      He  was  in  par- 
ticular Master   of  the   Hospital   of   St.   Katherine   from    1368   till   a   few  years  before   his 
death  in  1412.     The  fact  that  he  was  in  favour  with  the  King  and  that  he  was  allowed 
to   exercise  the  office  by  deputy,  makes  untenable  the  supposition  that  Chaucer  was  dis- 
missed because  he  was  a  friend  to  the  King,  or  because  he  did  not  actually  conduct  the 
office  himself.      (Devon's  Issues,  p.  359",  Cal.  Pat.  Roll   1379,  p.  386.     Full  statement  of 
ecclesiastical  offices  in  Bibliotheca  Topographica  Brittanica  II,  82.) 

SC.  R.  224,  mem.  36.     «  Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  p.  502. 


68  CHAUCER'S  OFFICIAL  LIFE 

Surely,  if  one  may  be  allowed  to  draw  inferences  from  facts,  it 
seems  most  likely  that  Chaucer  resigned  the  offices  either  to  take 
up  some  work  not  now  known  to  us,  or  to  have  leisure  after  more 
than  ten  years'  occupation  in  office  and  missions,  and  that  on  his 
resignation  the  King  made  merely  temporary  appointments  and 
later  filled  the  offices  according  to  his  pleasure. 

The  theory  that  Chaucer's  surrender  of  his  annuity  indicates 
any  extraordinary  condition  or  disfavour  on  the  part  of  his  patrons 
is  likewise  not  supported  by  the  facts.  In  the  introduction  to  the 
Chaucer  Records,  Mr.  Kirk  writes:  "It  may  be  asserted  without 
fear  of  contradiction,  that  it  was  a  most  unusual  thing  for  any 
man  to  surrender  a  pension,  and  for  the  King  to  grant  it  to  someone 
else.  Lands  and  tenements,  or  offices,  were  frequently  surrendered 
in  this  way,  but  not  pensions. ' ' 1  Surely  Mr.  Kirk 's  statement  is 
too  strong,  for  it  is  easy  to  find  plenty  of  examples  of  transfers  of 
annuity  quite  analogous  to  Chaucer's.  For  example,  in  38  Ed- 
ward III  a  grant  of  ten  marks  yearly  to  John  Gateneys  was,  with 
his  consent,  taken  from  him  and  given  to  Thomas  de  Fysshebone.2 
Later  an  annuity  held  by  John  de  Stone,  a  valet,  was  transferred 
by  his  request  to  Peter  de  Bruge.3  Other  examples  are  a  transfer 
of  an  annuity  from  Hugh  Ferrour  to  John  Spencer  at  the  request 
of  the  former;4  from  T.  de  Laleham  to  John  Stapenhull — at  request 
of  the  former5 — from  Richard  des  Armes  to  John  Andrews — "at 
supplication ' '  of  Richard  6 — from  John  Roose  to  Roger  Lestrange — 
granted  by  the  former,7 — from  Peter  de  Sancto  Paulo  to  John  de 
Herlyng — made  by  the  former  and  confirmed  by  the  King.8  Doubt- 
less many  other  examples  could  be  found  since  I  have  not  attempted 
to  do  more  than  note  the  cases  that  fell  under  my  eye.  Apparently 
the  sale  of  annuities  was  quite  as  ordinary  and  recognized  a  practice 
as  that  of  offices  or  lands.9 

»p.  XXXVI.  *Pat.  Boll  269,  mem.  12.  » idem  273,  mem.  10.  « Cal.  Pat.  Roll 
1378,  p.  248.  'idem,  p.  150.  « Cal.  Pat.  Roll  1378,  p.  146,  1389,  p.  95.  T  Pat.  Roll 
1378,  pp.  112-113.  »Cal.  Pat.  Roll  1350,  p.  574.  •  John  Scalby,  to  whom  Chaucer's 
annuity  was  granted,  seems  to  have  been  an  esquire  in  the  King's  household.  The  first 
record  of  him  is  a  grant  for  life  to  John  de  Scalby  of  the  forestership  and  custody  of 
the  forest  of  Parkhurst  and  Odepark,  Isle  of  Wight  (1382).  In  1386  John  de  Scalby 
the  elder  was  on  a  commission  in  East  Riding  (Yorkshire).  In  12  Richard  II  John 
Scalby,  esquire  of  the  bishop  of  Sarum,  borrowed  twenty  shillings  from  the  Exchequer. 
In  17  Richard  II  he  and  his  wife  Mathilda  borrowed  £  26,  13s.  4d.  i.  e.  the  forty  marks 
of  his  annuity,  from  the  Exchequer.  In  1396  the  King  granted  to  his  esquires  Richard 
Cardemewe  and  John  de  Scalby  the  goods  and  chattels  of  a  certain  outlaw,  to  the  value 


CHAUCER'S  CAREER  AND  HIS  RELATION  TO  JOHN  OF  GAUNT      69 

That  Chaucer  was  out  of  favour  from  1391  on,  and  in  financial 
trouble  is  again  difficult  to  establish.  Mr.  Kirk  has  shown  that 
his  "borrowings"  at  the  Exchequer,  in  those  years,  were  for  the 
most  part  no  borrowings  at  all  but  simply  a  device  for  getting 
money  that  was  due  him.1  Furthermore,  many  examples  of  the 
drawing  of  money  ' '  de  prestito ' '  from  the  Exchequer  may  be  found 
in  the  Issue  Roll.  In  11  Richard  II  Philippa  Duchess  of  Ireland 
drew  £  133,  6s.  8d.  in  this  way.2  In  the  same  year  Edmond  Rose 
borrowed  money  from  the  Exchequer.3  As  shown  above,  John 
Scalby  twice  drew  money  in  advance  in  this  way.  John  Herlyng, 
who  in  Chaucer's  time,  was  usher  of  the  Chamber,  borrowed  seven 
pounds  four  pence  in  28  Edward  III,  repaying  it  later ;  *  and  in  29 
Edward  III  drew  forty  pounds  in  the  same  way.6  So  hosts  of  ex- 
amples could  be  collected  from  the  Issue  Roll,  of  such  "borrow- 
ings." Certainly  they  do  not  indicate  that  the  "borrowers"  were 
financially  insolvent. 

Moreover  none  of  the  other  facts  which  we  have,  warrants  us  in 
assuming  that  Chaucer  was  pressed  for  money  and  out  of  favour. 
In  January  1393  he  was  granted  ten  pounds  for  good  service  ren- 
dered in  this  year  now  present,  i.  e.  apparently  the  later  part  of 
1392 — the  year  following  his  "dismissal."  In  addition  he  was  in 
1394  granted  another  annuity  of  twenty  pounds.  In  view  of  these 
facts  it  would  seem  that  the  only  definite  evidence  of  Chaucer's 
poverty  was  the  action  for  debt  of  £  14.  Is.  lid.  in  1398,  but  the  cir- 
cumstances connected  with  it — the  King's  letters  of  protection  and 
the  sheriff's  inability  to  find  Chaucer — are  so  remarkable  that  we 
cannot  draw  certain  inferences  from  it.6 

Looking  at  all  the  facts,  then,  we  must  admit  that  they  do  not 
form  any  proper  basis  for  most  of  the  assertions  that  have  been 
made.  They  do  not  constitute  even  the  suggestion  of  proof  that, 
when  Chaucer  lost  his  controllerships  and  gave  up  his  annuity,  he 
was  out  of  favour  with  the  King,  that  he  was  soon  in  dire  financial 

of  thirty-seven  pounds.  In  22  Richard  II  John  Scalby,  scutifer,  was  sent  from  Lich- 
field  to  Conway  on  secret  business  of  the  King,  and  was  paid  sixteen  shillings  eight  pence 
for  his  expenses.  In  1399  Henry  IV  confirmed  the  grant  of  forty  marks  a  year  to  John 
Scalby.  (Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  1382,  p.  150.  idem  p.  261.  Issues,  P.  319,  mem.  18.  idem, 
P.  332,  mem.  23.  Cal.  Pat.  Roll,  1396,  p.  48.  Issues,  P.  344,  mem.  11.  Cal.  Pat. 
Roll  1399,  p.  62). 

1  L.  R.  pp.  XLV,  XLVI.  2  Issues,  P.  316,  mem.  18.  3  idem.  *  idem,  P.  294,  mem. 
18.  "Issues,  P.  212,  mem.  1.  On  Herlyng's  financial  position  see  p.  27  above.  e  See 
Kirk  L.  R.,  p.  XLVII  f. 


70  CHAUCER'S  OFFICIAL  LIFE 

i 
straits,  and  that  when  again  in  1391  he  lost  the  clerkship  of  the 

works,  he  was  out  of  favour  and  pressed  for  money. 

If  we  wish  to  guess  at  the  reasons  why  Chaucer  gave  up  his 
offices  and  his  pension,  we  can  find  plenty  of  sufficient  motives. 
He  may  have  left  the  offices  for  several  reasons ;  he  had  held  the  con- 
trollership  of  the  customs  of  wool  for  twelve  years,  a  long  time  for 
the  holding  of  such  an  office  in  those  days;  he  may  therefore  have 
left  because  he  was  tired  of  them.  He  may  have  left  them  because 
some  one  had  given  him  something  better — we  know,  for  example, 
that  in  the  year  after  he  left  the  clerkship  of  the  works  he  was  em- 
ployed in  some  way  by  the  King;  so  in  the  earlier  case  he  may 
have  received  some  other  office  or  employment  the  record  of  which 
has  not  come  down  to  us.  From  November  1386  until  November 
1387  we  know  that  Richard  II  was  scouring  the  Midlands  trying  to 
gather  a  force  with  which  to  oppose  Gloucester;  he  may  have  em- 
ployed Chaucer  as  a  secret  messenger  throughout  that  year.  As  to 
the  annuity,  Chaucer  may  have  surrendered  it  because  he  could  get 
a  good  price  for  it  and  wanted  a  large  sum  of  money  for  some 
purpose,  perhaps  to  buy  land  or  improve  it.  Or  his  surrender  of 
the  annuity  may  have  been  made  by  arrangement  with  the  King, 
who  may  have  wished  to  give  an  annuity  to  a  comparatively  new 
esquire,  and  who  may  have  recompensed  Chaucer  in  some  other  way. 

Every  fact  that  we  have  would  fit  into  the  theory  that  Chaucer 
led  a  prosperous  and  important  life  (in  a  business  and  financial 
way)  from  1374  to  the  end  of  his  life.  Certainly  he  must  have  re- 
ceived a  large  amount  of  money  in  that  time ;  we  have  no  evidence 
of  his  having  lost  any ;  we  know  of  nothing  in  his  character  which 
would  lead  us  to  suppose  him  a  spendthrift  or  inefficient  in  financial 
affairs. 

I  do  not  wish  to  maintain  that  he  was  always  prosperous,  but 
only  that  the  facts  do  not  warrant  us  in  assuming  that  he  was  con- 
stantly on  the  verge  of  ruin  in  the  years  when,  so  far  as  wre  know, 
he  held  no  office. 


In  connection  with  the  Piers  Plowman  controversy,  I  have  been 
struck  with  Mr.  Jusserand's  insistence  that  Chaucer  did  not 
touch  upon  social  or  political  matters  in  his  poems.  That  was,  as 
Mr.  Manly  has  indicated,  very  probably  due  to  a  theory  of  the 
proper  subject  matter  of  poetry — an  idea  current  in  his  time  and 


CHAUCER'S  CAREER  AND  HIS  RELATION  TO  JOHN  OF  GAUNT      71 

enunciated  by  Alan  Chartier  most  distinctly.  But  back  of  that 
may  have  been  in  Chaucer 's  case  certain  peculiar  traits  of  character. 
Chaucer  was  in  direct  connection  with  the  court  and  with  the  city 
at  the  time  when  political  enmity  between  two  main  factions  was 
very  bitter — so  bitter  that  in  1386  it  led  to  the  killing  of  Simon  de 
Burley  and  Sir  Nicholas  Brembre  as  well  as  less-known  men  like 
Beauchamp  and  Salesbury  and  Berners,  and  to  the  flight  of  men 
like  Michael  de  la  Pole  and  Robert  de  Vere,  and  again  in  1392  led  to 
the  execution  of  the  Earl  of  Arundel,  the  murder  of  Gloucester,  and 
almost  to  the  murder  of  the  Earl  of  Warwick.  Chaucer  was  in 
daily  contact  with  men  connected  with  one  faction  or  the  other. 
What  was  his  attitude?  What  party  did  he  follow?  I  have  tried 
to  suppose  that  he  was  a  member  of  the  Gloucester  or  Lancaster 
faction  but  I  have  found  facts  such  as  his  retention  by  Richard  as 
controller  of  the  customs  from  1383-4  on,  and  his  subsequent  ap- 
pointment to  the  clerkship  of  the  works,  that  could  scarcely  have 
been  brought  about  by  Lancastrian  influence.  Then  I  have  tried 
to  use  as  a  hypothesis  the  conception  that  he  was  a  partisan  of  the 
King.  But  I  have  not  been  able  to  reconcile  with  that  idea  the 
fact  that  he  had  the  grant  of  the  annuity  from  John  of  Gaunt, 
that  Henry  IV  in  the  year  of  his  accession  granted  him  an  extra 
annuity  of  40  marks  in  addition  to  the  £  20  which  he  confirmed  to 
him,  and  that  in  1395  or  1396  he  seems  to  have  been  in  the  em- 
ployment of  either  John  of  Gaunt  or  Henry,  his  son.  Consequently 
it  seems  to  me  that  Chaucer  can  not  have  been  active  in  politics. 
At  the  very  time  when  factional  strife  was  waging  about  him  he 
must  have  kept  practically  free  from  both  parties.  He  seems  to 
have  had  friends  in  both  camps,  though  by  far  the  greater  number 
were  in  that  of  the  King:  Oto  de  Graunson — a  member  of  John 
of  Gaunt 's  household — and  in  later  years  apparently  Henry  of 
Derby,  represent  the  Lancastrian  side;  on  the  other  hand,  Louis 
Clifford,  John  Clanvowe,  John  Burley — men  apparently  attached 
to  the  Black  Prince,  his  wife  £nd  his  son, — Brembre  and  Philipot 
with  whom  he  must  have  been  on  fairly  good  terms,  and  probably 
even  Thomas  Usk,  were  men  strongly  opposed  to  John  of  Gaunt. 
Too  many  things  connect  Chaucer  with  both  parties  to  make  his 
identification  with  either  possible. 


72  CHAUCER'S  OFFICIAL  LIFE 

The  reasons  why  Chaucer  did  not  dabble  pronouncedly  in  poli- 
tics may  have  been  various — a  clear  perception  that  such  was  the 
only  safe  course  for  him — an  entire  indifference  and  lack  of  under- 
standing of  politics — or  what  you  will.  At  any  rate  his  connection 
with  both  parties  is  certainly  in  consonance  with  the  exclusion 
from  his  poetry  of  political  matter  of  the  kind  which  appears  for 
example  in  Gower. 


INDEX  OF  NAMES 


Almannia,  Henricus,   (Almaigne),  11, 

12. 

Archebald,  William,  24,  24,  24. 
Archer,  Agnes,  22,  26. 
Archer,  Roger,  12,  26. 

Alexandra  de  la  Mote,  wife  of,  26. 
Armes,  Richard  des, 

See,  Careswell,   Richard  de,  11,  14, 

17,  68. 

Barbour,  Reynold  (le),  11. 
Bardolf,  Robert,  12. 
Bealknap,  Robert,  37. 
Beauchamp,  John,   6,   12,   18,  19,   20, 
24,  25,  63,  71. 

Joan,  wife  of,  25. 

le  ffitz,  19. 

Beauchamp,  Sir  William  de,  50  ff.,  62. 
Berkeley,  Sir  Edward  de,  49. 
Bernes,  John  de,  42,  44. 
Beverle,  John  de,  11,  14,  19,  21,  24,  26, 
30  ff. 

Almicia,  wife  of,  26,  30,  32. 
Blacomore,  William,  14. 
Bokenham,  Simond  de, 

See  Bukenham,  15,  18,  22,  24,  25,  27. 

Matilda  Gerounde,  wife  of,  25. 
Bonyngton,  Roger,  11. 
Brembre,  Nicholas,  38,  42,  43,  44  ff., 

45,  46,  47,  63,  65,  71. 
Brenchesley,  William,  41. 
Brokhill,  Thomas,  41. 
Bukenham,  Simon,  11,  19. 
Bukton,  54  ff. 

Burele,  William  de,  (Burley),  12,  48. 
Burgh,  Simon,  11,  15,  19,  21,  27. 
Burley,   Sir   John   de,    12,   20,   48    ff, 

71. 

Burley,  Simon  de,  38,  40,  48,  54,  60, 
65,  71. 


Byker,  Patrick,  6,  12. 

John,  6. 

William,  6. 
Cambridge, 

See  Edmund,  Count  of, 
Careswell,  Richard,  11. 
Careu,  Nicholas,  the  elder,  6,  12. 

the  younger,  6. 
Cat,  John,  11. 
Chambre,  Griffith  de  la,  12,  15,  22,  23, 

27. 

Cheyne,  Hugh,  10,  15,  19,  21,  24,  25, 
27. 

Joan,  wife  of  Hugh,  25. 

Roger,  10. 

Thomas,  11,  18,  21,  24,  27,  57. 

John,  11. 

William,  11. 

Chippenham,  Walter,  11,  19. 
Clanvowe,  Sir  John,   (or  Clanbrowe), 

49,  71. 
Clarence, — see  Lionel. 

Countess  of,  60. 

See  Elizabeth,  Countess  of  Ulster. 
Clebury,  Roger,  7,  15,  21,  23,  24,  27. 
Clifford,  Lewis  de,  50,  71. 
Clinton,  John,  39. 
Clopton,  Walter,  37. 
Clopton,  William,  7,  23. 
Cobeham,  John  de,  39. 
Conyngsby,  John  de,  14. 
Corby,  Robert  de,  7,  12,  15,  19,  21,  24, 
25,  27. 

Alice,  wife  of,  25. 
Cornewaill,  Piers  de,  15,  21,  24,  27. 
Culpeper,  Thomas,  40. 
Dubrichecourt,   Collard,   or,   Nicholas, 
7,  12,  15,  19,  21,  25,  27. 

Elizabeth,  wife  of,  25. 


74 


CHAUCER'S  OFFICIAL  LIFE 


Devereux,  John,  39,   ff. 
Edmund,  Count  of  Cambridge,  12,  50. 
Edward,  the  Black  Prince,  12,  12. 
Elizabeth,  Countess  of  Ulster,  13,  33. 
Erchedeakne,  Raulyn,  22,  27. 
Felbrigge,  George,  8,  20,  26,  35  ff. 
Margaret,  wife  of,  26,  35,  36. 
Anne,  wife  of,  36. 
Ferrers,  Robert  de,  8,  12,  15,  21,  26, 

27,  50. 

Elizabeth,  wife  of,  26. 
Ferrour,  Roger. 

See  Bonyngton,  Roger,  11. 
Fogg,  Thomas,  40. 
Forester,  Richard,  52  ff. 
Foxle,  Thomas,  15,  and  note,  21,  27. 
Fremingham,  John,  40. 
Frowyk,  Thomas,  8,  11,  59. 
Gambon,  William,  24,  57. 
Girdelere,  Robert,  42,  46. 
Gisors,  Henry,  62,  67,  and  note. 
Goderik,  John,  14. 
Gosedene,  John,  14. 
Graunson,  Oto  de,  54,  71. 
Hannemere,  David,  37. 
Hauberk,  Laurence,  15,  19,  22,  27. 
Hauteyn,  Thomas,  9,  11,  15,  21,  27, 

59. 
Herlyng,  John  de,  9,  14,  18,  21,  23,  24, 

27,  35,  66  note,  68,  69. 
Hermesthorpe,  John,  66  note,  67,  and 

note. 

Hertfordyngbury,  Thomas,  16,  22,  27. 
Irlonde,  Richard,  11. 
Isabella,  wife  of  Ingelram  de  Cour- 

cy,  12,  12,  26. 
Joce,  John,  12. 
John  of  Gaunt,  1   ff.,  12,  27,  34,  42, 

43,  45,  49,  50,  54,  56,  58,  59,  60, 

61,  62,  71. 

Knyveton,  Rauf  de,  9,  15,  19. 
Lancaster,  see  John  of  Gaunt. 
Larderer,  Robert,  11,  see  Maghfeld, 

Robert. 
Leche,    Richard,   11,   14,   see   Irlonde, 

Richard. 
John,  11. 


Leget,  Helmyng,  9,  15,  18,  19,  21,  23, 
24,  25,  27,  66  note. 

Alice,  9,  25. 

Legge,  John,  9,  11,  15,  18,  19,  22,  26, 
27,  59. 

Agnes,  wife  of,  26. 
Lionel,  duke  of  Clarence,  12,  13. 
Louth,  Robert,  10,  26. 

Joan,  wife  of,  26. 
Loveden,  Thomas,  57. 
Lyngeyn,  Hugh,  16,  18,  22,  24,  26,  27. 

Agatha,  wife  of,  26. 
Maghfeld,  Robert,  11. 
Mareschall,  Roger,  12. 
Markham,  Richard,  11. 
Narrett,  Hanyn,  15,  22,  27. 
Neuport,  Reginald,  57. 
Northbury,  Richard,  42,  43,  46. 
North  rugg,  John,  15,  22,  27. 
Olney,  John,  26. 

Stephanetta,  wife  of,  26. 
Organ,  John,  42,  47. 
Padbury,  John,  20. 
Pekham,  James  de,  41. 
Percy,  Thomas  de,  49  ff.,  54. 
Philipot,  John,  42,  43,  44,  46  ff.,  47, 

63,  65,  71. 
Pole,  Michael  de  la,  38,  39,  45,  48,  59, 

60,  61,  71. 

Prage,  Nicholas,  16,  18,  22,  27. 
Preston,  Piers,  26. 

Alice,  wife  of,  26. 
Richard  II,  38,  48,  59,  63  ff.,  70. 
Rikhill,  William,  40. 
Risceby,  William  de,  16,  24. 
Romesey,  John  de,  10,  15,  19,  21,  26, 
27. 

Margaret,  wife  of,  26. 
Romylowe,  Stephen,  12,  20,  24. 
Roos,  John,  24. 

Rose,  Esmon,  15,  18,  22,  23,  26,  27, 
69. 

Agnes  Archer,  wife  of,  26. 
Salesbury,  John  de,  18,  19,  24,  25,  63, 
71.  " 

Johanna,  wife  of,  25. 


INDEX  OF   NAMES 


75 


Scalby,  John,  68  note,  69. 

Scogan,  Henry,  54. 

Souch,  Robert  la,  see  Zouche,  11,  22, 
27. 

Spigurnell,  Thomas,  11,  16,  19,  26. 
Katherine,  wife  of,  26. 

Stanes,  Thomas  de,  14. 

Strelley,  Hugh,   (Straule),  10,  16,  22, 
27. 

Strete,  William,  14,  24. 

Stncle,    Geoffrey,    (Styuecle),    11,    13, 
15,  17,  20,  21,  32  ff. 

Talbot,  Gilbert,  10. 

Tettesworth,  Edmond  de,  14. 

Thorpe,  Johan  de,  15,  22,  23,  27. 

Tichemerssh,  Johan,  22,  27,  see  Tysch- 
emerssh. 

Tipet,  John,  57. 

Topclyf,  William,  41,  65. 

Torperle,  Richard,  12,  15,  22,  27. 

Tresilian,  Robert,  37,  45. 

Tychemerssh,    John    de,    see    Tiche- 
merssh, 15. 

Tyndale,  Andrew,  13. 


Ursewyk,  Robert,  12. 
Usk,  Thomas,  63,  71. 
Vere,  Robert  de,  36,  38,  61,  71. 
Vynour,  Robert,  11. 
Waffrer,  Richard,  see  Markham,  Rich- 
ard, 11. 
Wake,  Hugh,  10,  15,  21,  26,  27. 

Joan,  wife  of,  26. 
Walssh,  Wauter,  15,  18,  21,  26,  27. 

Joan,  wife  of,  26. 
Walworth,  William  de,  42,  43,  45  ff., 

63,  65. 

Warde,  John,  42,  46. 
Whithors,  Walter,  11,  14,  19,  21,  23, 
26,  28  ff. 

Mabel,  wife  of,  26,  29. 
Wirle,  Richard,  12,  16,  27. 
Wyght,  Walter,  26. 

Margaret,  wife  of,  26. 
Yardley,  Adam,  62,  67. 
Ybernia,  Cornelius  de,  11. 
York,  William  de,  11. 
Zouche,  Robert  la,  15,  19.   See  Souch. 


- 
, 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

Return  this  material  to  the  library 

from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


|LLF 


JAN 


QL  APR  0  9  1990 


THE  LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
LOS  ANGELES 


